Allowed

Pradeep v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2023BAIL/38390/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant Pradeep in a criminal case alleging grievous hurt. The court held that despite the gravity of the offence, the applicant's clean record, long incarceration, and the nature of sudden provocation made out a case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each with conditions to not tamper with evidence and appear in court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178545

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38390 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pradeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Tripathi,Vinay Prakash Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Vinay Prakash Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Instant application for bail has been filed by applicant-Pradeep seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 04 of 2023 under Sections 506, 504, 304 I.P.C. Police Station-Bahjoi, DistrictSambhal, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 31.12.2022, a delayed F.I.R dated 01.01.2023 was lodged by first informant Kumari Manju (Daughter of the deceased) and was registered as Crime No. 0004 of 2023 under Sections 304, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Bahjoi, DistrictSambhal. In the aforesaid F.I.R. applicant-Pradeep has been nominated as solitary named accused.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused inasmuch as the charge sheet has been submitted against applicant on 17.01.2023 yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. He then contends that occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings has

¶11

occurred on the spur of moment on account of grave and sudden provocation. As such, criminality committed by applicant shall be covered under the fourth exception to Section 300 I.P.C. and therefore same shall not travel beyond section 304 part 1 I.P.C. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that no weapon of assault was used by applicant, therefore, applicant is not liable to be convicted under Section 304 part 1 I.P.C. and Section 304 part 2 I.P.C. There is nothing on record to show that there was a calculated mens-rea with the applicant to commit the crime or the occurrence is the outcome of a pre planned act of the named/charge sheeted accused.

¶12

6.Even otherwise applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 02.01.2023. As such he has undergone more than 8 months of incarceration. Police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore the entire evidence sought to relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. Upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant thus submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶13

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since the applicant is a named as well as chargesheeted accused, therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, he could be dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶14

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that present case is a case of sudden provocation, therefore, same is covered under the fourth exception to Section 300 I.P.C.,there is nothing on record to show that there was a calculated mens-rea with the applicant to commit the crime or the occurrence is the outcome of a pre planned act of the named/charge sheeted accused, the criminality alleged to have committed by named/charge-sheeted accused may not travel beyond Section 304 part 1I I.PC as no weapon of assault was used, police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted therefore the entire evidence sought to relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised, yet in spite of above the learned A.G.A. could be point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial , the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), the period of incarceration undergone by applicant, the clean antecedents of applicant but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶15

Accordingly, present application for bail is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Pradeep involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on their 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:-

¶17

(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶18

(ii) Applicant 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.

¶19

(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶20

(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶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 of applicant and send him to prison.

¶22

Order Date :- 15.9.2023 YK

¶23

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

Pradeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Up vs Govind Das Sutradhar and Others

Raj Kumar Tiwari @ Vikki and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bebi Vs State of U.P.

Aarif Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Ram Bharose Vs State of U.P.