Allowed

Maneshar and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023BAIL/25390/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court granted bail to two applicants in a movie theatre murder case under Section 304 IPC. The court noted the injury causing death was unattributed and the incident was a spur-of-the-moment clash. Bail was allowed on furnishing a bond and multiple conditions to ensure trial participation without harassment or evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on personal bond and two sureties each with conditions regarding conduct, attendance at trial, and prohibition of adjournments during evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:137409

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25390 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Maneshar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dharmendra Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Manish Dev Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants- Maneshar and Priyanshu , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 366 of 2022, under Section 304 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur.

¶8

The first information report of the present case was lodged under Section 304 I.P.C. on 02.11.2022 by Ayyub Ali against the applicants, Janeshar @ Bhuru and Shivam alleging therein that his son Jiaul Rehman was close to the daughter of Maneshar. On 1/2.11.2022 at about 11 pm his son went to meet the girl at her house where the accused persons caught-hold of him and assaulted him with lathi , danda and fists. Salim Ahmad and Abdul Rehman intervened and got him freed. Many people of the village collected there. Jiaul Rehman was taken to the hospital where after first-aid he was referred to higher centre since his condition was serious but on the way he died.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the deceased was although found to have received 14 injuries but the injury no.14 was a traumatic swelling on left side head with large sub-dural hematoma present at brain under left parietal and frontal bone. It is argued that in so far as the other 13 injuries are concerned, there is one more injury being multiple abrasion on left side of forehead extending to left side of face whereas the other 12 injuries are on nonvital parts which could not contribute to the death of the deceased. It is argued that although the doctor has opined the cause of death as shock & haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injury but the injury having hematoma was the fatal injury. It is argued that there is no specification regarding the author of the said injury. It is argued that the present incident has taken place at the spur of moment where the deceased was seen meeting the daughter of the applicant no.1. The applicants have no criminal history as stated in para 16 of the affidavit and are in jail since 19.04.2023.

¶10

Per contra , learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is argued that the applicants are named in the first information report and have assaulted the deceased along with two other accused persons due to which he received 14 injuries and died. It is argued that the applicants have a motive to commit the aforesaid offence since the daughter of the applicant no.1 was having closeness with the deceased and the deceased had gone to meet her in the night where he was caught-hold and assaulted. It is argued that the place of occurrence is the house of the applicant no.1 and as such the applicants are involved.

¶11

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the incident has taken place at the spur of moment. The deceased was found to have received 14 injuries on his person but one injury having hematoma in the brain appears to be fatal. The author of the said injury is not known.

¶12

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicants may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicants- Maneshar and Priyanshu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

i) The applicants will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

ii) The applicants will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(iv) The applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶18

(v) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against

¶19

them in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC.

¶20

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicants.

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison.

¶22

The bail application is allowed.

¶23

Order Date :- 12.7.2023 AS Rathore

¶24

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Maneshar and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maneshar and Another 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

Father Apolin Lobo Ex-Director Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sanjay Kumar Ladda Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Zubair Vs State of U.P.

Vikendra @ Billu Vs State of U.P.

Ali Hasan Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home and 3 Others