Allowed

Deepak Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2023BAIL/23693/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to an accused charged with culpable homicide and intimidation following a clash over electricity theft where both parties were injured in firing.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on two sureties each, subject to conditions including appearance before the trial court, no tampering with evidence or witnesses, and maintaining peace.

What the court decided

Deepak Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190696

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23693 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pardeep Kumar,Ram Bahadur,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhiraj Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dhirej Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per first information report, the dispute arose on account of theft of electricity from the tube-well of the informant as a result of same, both the sides have assaulted as a result of same, fire arm injury has been sustained by the injured Pushpendra. He submits that one fire arm injury has been found on the body of the victim. It is submitted that although the injuries are grievous in nature, however, they are not life threatening. It is submitted that applicant had also suffered fire arm injury in the same incident and the medical report of the applicant is at page 88 of the paper book. He submits that both the sides have entered into open firing as a result of same, both sides have lodged FIR. The FIR lodged by the applicant is at page 79 of the paper book. He submits that the dispute arose at the spur of moment. He submits that there was no intention to commit culpable homicide nor there is any evidence of doctor that injury would result in culpable homicide. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 3.2.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail application and submits that the injured suffered one fire arm injury in the abdomen area. He submits that the injuries were

¶10

grievous in nature. However, he could not dispute the fact that the applicant in the same incident has also suffered fire arm injury and the first information report was lodged through the process of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the informant further submits that on previous occasion applicant has been convicted under Section 307 IPC in the year 2016 and is on bail in the criminal appeal filed before this Court.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶12

Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶13

It is not the case of the State that there is a possibility of interdicting fair trial by the accused-applicant if released on bail. No material has been shown that the Applicant is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or there is any material to show that applicant will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶14

The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accusedapplicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has not placed any reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/State will be at peril in case the Applicant is released on bail.

¶16

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has been convicted for any offence on previous occasion.

¶17

No material has been placed by the opposite party that the Applicant in the past has attempted to evade the process of law. Further, no material facts and circumstances have been placed to show that it is not in public interest or interest of society at large to release the applicant on bail.

¶18

No material has been shown to suggest that the applicant is at flight risk, has chance of repeating the offence, or intimidating the

¶19

witness if enlarged on bail.

¶20

It is to be seen that in the present case the dispute arose at the tube-well while applicant was taking electricity supply. Both the sides have resorted to firing and both the sides have suffered fire arm injuries. Further both the sides have also lodged first information report on which investigation is being carried on. It is further to be noted that there is no medical statement of doctor to the effect that the injuries sustained by the injured in the present case were life threatening although injuries were grievous in nature. Applicant is languishing in jail since 3.2.2023.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, both the sides have entered into firing and both the sides have sustained injuries and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let the applicant Deepak Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 03 of 2023, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Nakur, District Saharanpur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶23

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶24

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶25

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶26

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶27

v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶28

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶29

vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶30

It is also directed that applicant shall not disturb the peace living of the informant and his family members.

¶31

The S.H.O. concerned is hereby directed to maintain peace and tranquility between the parties.

¶32

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

¶33

Order Date :- 4.10.2023

¶34

D. Tamang

¶35

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepak Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Deepak 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

Mohammad Hamid Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunil Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Prashant @ Lallu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh @ Golu Vs State of U.P.

Amanul Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Vs State of U.P.