This court rejected bail applications filed by Nem Chand and Omkar in a criminal trial under Sections 304, 323, 325, 504, and 506 of the IPC, holding it not a fit case for bail and directing the trial court to expedite proceedings.
Application dismissed; bail not granted; trial directed to be concluded within one year.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:105931
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16615 of 2023
Applicant :- Nem Chand Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ishwar Chandra Tyagi with
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36952 of 2021 Applicant :- Omkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Prasad,Javed Khan,Rajiv Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ishwar Chandra Tyagi
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anmol Chandra Dubey holding brief of Sri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicants in Case Crime No. 68 of 2021 (Sessions Trial No. 332 of 2021), under Sections 304, 323, 325, 504 & 506 of IPC, Police Station Rahra, District Amroha with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case for the reason that prior to the aforesaid incident one of the applicants namely Nem Chand filed a complaint against the first informant Ram Ratan (deceased) and Ramveer, Mohar Singh, Ram Prasad and Hari Raj and they were summoned to face trial by the court concerned. It is further submitted that in the first information report three persons were named including the applicant and general role has been assigned to all of them. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It is further
submitted that prior to death of deceased, during his treatment six injuries were noted to be found on his body whereas during postmortem of the deceased as many as 12 injuries were noted. It is further submitted that doctor Saurabh Tyagi who medically treated the Ram Ratan (deceased) prior to his death and conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, has examined himself as PW5 before the trial Court and he failed to explain the difference of injuries noted in the medical report and post-mortem report. It is further submitted that recovery of lathi and danda shown on the pointing out of the applicants are false. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. It is further submitted that applicants are languishing in jail since 27.03.2021 having no criminal history and that in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by contending that first information report was lodged against the applicants by the deceased himself. As per the postmortem report, as many as 12 injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased. As per the X-ray report of the Ram Ratan (deceased), his arms and legs were found to be fractured and as per the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. It is further contended that except the Investigating officer all the fact witnesses were examined before the trial court and trial is in its logical end.
Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby rejected.
Trial court is directed to expedite the trial and all endeavours be made to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of one year after receipt of the certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties subject to full co-operation by the applicants.
Any observation made above shall not be treated as any finding on the merits of the case and shall not prejudice the trial in any manner.
Order Date :- 16.5.2023 AKT
Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicants are eligible for bail given the gravity of the offences and the nature of the trial.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nem Chand
Omkar
State of U.P.
Mayank Kumar Jain
Ashok Kumar Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
