Allowed

Ramesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023BAIL/20957/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed by Ramesh Kumar in a murder case. The court considered delays in lodging the FIR, the general role assigned to the accused, and the lack of specific weapon allocation, noting that the admission of enmity suggests subsequent framing of the charge.

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions of appearance and non-interference.

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:137307

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20957 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Pathak,Arvind Kumar Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Awadh Narayan Tiwari,Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.59 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 304 IPC, Police Station Nawabganj, District Prayagraj during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged on 5.2.2023 under Sections 323, 308, 504 and 506 IPC against the applicant and three others and according to the FIR, on 4.2.2023 at about 8.00 AM in the morning when husband of the informant went towards his field then applicant along with his 3 associates made assault upon him through wooden sticks, axe and 'Rambha' due to previous enmity and when son of the informant arrived at spot then accused persons also assaulted him and due to assault made by applicant and others husband of the informant sustained serious injuries.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 323,308, 504 and 506 IPC but after the death of injured case was converted under Section 304 IPC. He further submits that only general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including applicant and

¶10

not even any weapon was assigned to anyone and even from the perusal of the statement of alleged Rajendra, the son of deceased, it appears that he also did not assign any specific weapon to any accused person and, therefore, it appears that only due to previous enmity applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

¶11

He further submits that although injured Rajendra, the son of deceased, in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that accused persons also assaulted him but he did not state that he also sustained injury and this fact clearly suggests that he was not present at spot and in fact he did not sustain any injury.

¶12

He further submits that although incident is said to have taken place on 4.2.2023 at about 8.00 AM but FIR of the present case was lodged on 5.1.2023 at about 14.53 hours, i.e., after about more than 24 hours.

¶13

He further submits that even from the perusal of parcha of the case diary which has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit it appears that injured Rajendra was examined on 14.2.2023, i.e., after about 10 days from the date of alleged incident and all these facts clearly suggests that only to show himself injured witness he procured his injury report and this fact again strengthen the version of the defence that only due to previous enmity subsequently after about more than 24 hours applicant has been implicated in the present matter.

¶14

He further submits that even from the perusal of the post mortem report it appears that deceased sustained two injuries, one on his head and one on his abdomen and from the record it could not be reflected that applicant caused these injuries to him.

¶15

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 6.3.2023.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the perusal of the post mortem report it appears on the body of deceased there were as many as 27 stitches on his head and number of stitches were found on his abdomen, therefore, it is a case of brutal murder but both the learned counsels could not give satisfactory explanation that why injured was examined after about 10 days.

¶17

Although, learned counsel for the informant with regard to delay in lodging the FIR submits that as entire family was busy in the treatment of injured( since deceased), therefore, earlier FIR of the present case could not be lodged.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶19

Although in the FIR it has been specifically stated that injured was present at spot and he also sustained injury and injured is the son of deceased but he was examined on 14.2.2023, i.e., after about 10 days and no explanation has been given in this regard.

¶20

Although argument advanced by the learned counsel for the informant that due to engagement of family members in the treatment of the injured (since deceased), earlier FIR could not be lodged, cannot be completely brushed aside but in my view at the stage of bail inordinate delay in lodging the FIR should not ignored.

¶21

In the present matter, the incident is said to have taken

¶22

place on 4.2.2023 at about 8.00 AM in the morning but FIR was lodged on 5.2.2023 at about 14.53 hours, i.e., after about 29 hours.

¶23

Enmity between both the parties is admitted, therefore, at this stage argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that due to previous enmity, subsequently applicant has been implicated in the present matter, cannot be completely disbelieved.

¶24

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶26

Let the applicant- Ramesh Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶28

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶29

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶31

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶32

Order Date :- 12.7.2023

¶33

SKM

¶34

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bittu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikram Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Akash Vs State of U.P.

Phool Miyan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajindra Vs State of U.P.