Dismissed

Ranveer v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2023BAIL/44331/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected a bail application under Sections 307, 302 IPC, dismissing the claim of disproportionate bail treatment compared to a co-accused due to fatal skull injuries sustained by the deceased.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; Trial directed to be concluded within one year.

What the court decided

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44331 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ranveer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Anurag Sharma,Imran Ullah,Rajesh Singh Rathore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjive Kumar Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajesh Singh Rathore, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Sanjive Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.198 of 2018, under Sections 307, 302, 452 read with 34 I.P.C., Police Station Dataganj, District Budaun with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant and co-accused Vishan Pal and other persons six in all are stated to have come to the Chaupal of the informant and thereby are stated to have started hurling abuses at them and the applicant and co-accused person Vishan Pal are said to have inflicted injuries by knife and Chhuri at the deceased person causing his death thereby on 2.3.2018 at about 05:00 p.m.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has stated that the FIR is delayed by one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that there are two injuries sustained by the deceased person. The three co-accused persons, namely, Munendra, Ravi and Sheelu have been exonerated by the Investigating Officer as such prosecution story stands falsified. Learned counsel has further stated that the trial is moving at a snail's pace and only statement of PW-1 informant has been recorded. Learned counsel has further stated that the bail application of co-accused Vishal Pal has been rejected by this Court but it is settled law that there is no parity in case of rejection of bail as such applicant is entitled for bail on the ground that knife recovered at the pointing out of the applicant has not been found blood-stained, thus the case of the applicant

¶10

is at different footing to co-accused Vishan Pal. There is a criminal history of one case against the applicant prior to this case and he is on bail in the said case. The case under Section 25/4 Arms Act has been instituted against the applicant pursuant to the said recovery of knife and a case under the Gangster Act has also been instituted subsequent to the present FIR. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.3.2018. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the case of the applicant and co-accused person Vishal Pal is at par as both of them had inflicted fatal injury on the skull of the deceased person as it finds support by the autopsy report of the deceased person. The applicant and other co-accused persons in furtherance of common intention have committed the said offence.

¶12

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the evidence on record and taking into consideration the factum of injury sustained by the deceased person and applicant being author of the said injury inflicted on the skull of the deceased person along with co-accused Vishan Pal, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶13

The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected .

¶14

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order or as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702 , if there is no legal impediment.

¶15

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.

¶16

Order Date :- 28.2.2023 Vikas

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ranveer v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Ranveer 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amar Pal Vs State of U.P.

Manjesh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Pal Vs State of U.P.

Anshu @ Praveen Vs State of U.P.

Lokesh @ Yash @ Bhati Vs State of U.P.

Hemraj Kumar Vs State of U.P.