Allowed

Mangeram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2023BAIL/44427/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail application allowed by Allahabad High Court bench of Hon'ble Sameer Jain, J. considering the significant delay in FIR lodging and recording of statements, even though the application was decided without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Mangeram released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear, not interfere with evidence, and not engage in criminal activities.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:208891

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44427 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mangeram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neha Tyagi,Akash Tyagi,Pankaj Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kr. Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 179 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 304 IPC, Police Station Jani, District Meerut during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and his two sons on 10.06.2023 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and according to the FIR on 10.05.2023 applicant along with his son Arjun made assault upon the father of the informant and due to the assault made by them, his father sustained serious injuries. It is further mentioned in the FIR that another son of the applicant Ravi abused and threatened the father of the informant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged after one month and although as per FIR brother of the informant accompanied his father but surprisingly his statement was recorded after more than two months from the date of lodging of the FIR.

¶10

He further submits that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC but after the death of the injured i.e. father of the informant case was converted under Section 304 IPC. He further submits that statement of the injured since deceased till his death could not be recorded. He further submits that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 06.09.2023.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged after about one month and even statement of the alleged eye witness Guddu was recorded after more than one and half months from the date of lodging of the FIR i.e. on 30.07.2023.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶13

Considering the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged after one month and after about more than one and half months the statement of alleged eye witness Guddu was recorded, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant - Mangeram be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 1.11.2023 AK Pandey

¶22

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

Mangeram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangeram 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pushpendra Vs State of U.P.

Karan Alias Kalla Vs State of U.P.

Umar Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abu Jahabi @ Jaibi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ranjan Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.