Allowed

Pravesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2023BAIL/38945/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application by the sole accused charged under sections 279 and 304 IPC for causing death by rash and negligent driving, the High Court observed that while the prosecution story appears probable initially, the lack of specific grounds necessitating custodial arrest and the applicant's clean antecedents justified granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant granted bail to furnish a personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions regarding attendance and no police interference.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:218281

¶2

Reserved on: 7.11.2023

¶3

Delivered on: 17.11.2023

¶4

Court No. - 65

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38945 of 2023

¶6

Applicant :- Pravesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Arshad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶8

Heard Mr. Mohd. Arshad, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶9

Perused the record.

¶10

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Pravesh, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 186 of 2023, under sections 279, 304 IPC, Police Station- Tila Mod, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 3.4.2023, a belated F.I.R. dated 4.4.2023 was lodged by first informant Aiyush Jain and was registered as Case Crime No. 186 of 2023, under sections 279, 304 IPC, Police Station- Tila Mod, District Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R., applicant Pravesh has been nominated as solitary named accused.

¶12

The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that applicant indulged in rash and negligent driving and thereby caused accident with the father of first informant. On the shout raised by first informant, applicant is alleged to have run over his motorcycle on the neck of the father of first informant, resulting his death.

¶13

After aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, technical examination of offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 11 HC 3679 was conducted. Accordingly, the technical

¶14

inspection report dated 15.4.2023 was submitted. As per the said report, the offending vehicle was damaged from front. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon, who conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased, the cause of death of deceased is cranio cerebral damage consequent upon beat force trauma. Ultimately, the Investigating Officer, submitted charge-sheet dated 21.4.2023, whereby applicant has been charge-sheeted under sections 279 and 304 IPC.

¶15

Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is named and charge-sheeted accused, yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. As per the technical examination report, it is evident that offending vehicle met with a head on collision. In the opinion autopsy surgeon, the cause of death of deceased is head injuries sustained by deceased. However, applicant has been charge sheeted under section 304 IPC. However, up to this stage, except for the statements of witness examined under section 161 Cr.P.c., there is no other evidence to support the charge alleged against applicant. However, the medical evidence does not suppor the ocular version of the occurrence.

¶16

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 jail since 4.4.2023. As such, he has undergone more than six months of incarceration. Police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. However, upto this stage, no such, circumstances has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶17

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

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact that cause of death of deceased is head injury produced by blunt force, therefore, prima

¶19

facie the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. and substantiated in the statements of witnesses examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. does not appear to be probable, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, the police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution against applicants stands crystalized, yet inspite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, therefore, inspite of the objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed.

¶21

Let the applicant Pravesh , 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:-

¶22

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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.

¶23

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶24

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶25

(iv) THE APPLICANT 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 APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR

¶26

THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶27

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶28

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶29

Order Date :- 17.11.2023 Arshad

¶30

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pravesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravesh 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

Shariq Vs State of U.P.

Rahual Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harmukhi Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Guddi Devi Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others