Allowed

Rukmesh and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2023BAIL/46136/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the High Court dismissed the plea of the first applicant as not pressed. The court allowed bail for the second applicant involved in an alleged assault case under various IPC sections, holding that the applicant made a case for bail as no exceptional circumstances warranting denial were established.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for applicant no. 2 subject to personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions including appearance and non-tampering.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:225485

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46136 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rukmesh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kulveer Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press the bail application moved on behalf of accused/applicant no. 1 Rukmesh at this stage and seeks liberty to file fresh bail application in respect of accused/applicant no. 1 Rukmesh.

¶9

In view of above, the bail application in respect of accused/applicant no. 1 Rukmesh is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file fresh bail application.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant no.2 that as per allegations in the First Information Report general role of assault has been assigned to the accused persons as a result of the same injuries have been sustained by the injured. Learned counsel for the applicant no. 2 further submits that as per injury report, injured Jai Pal has suffered three injuries which have been caused by sharp edged object and the injured Opin has suffered five injuries which has been caused by hard and blunt object. Thereafter supplementary report of injured Opin was prepared where no abnormality was detected. All the injuries were found to be general in nature except injury nos. 1 and 2 of injured Jaipal were found to be grievous in nature. However, as per the statement of the Doctor which was recorded subsequently injury no. 1 on the head was found to be dangerous to life. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant no. 2 that subsequently an affidavit has

¶11

been filed by the injured, Jaipal and Opin that the accused have assaulted with the screwdriver and as a result of the same injury has been sustained near the lips.

¶12

5-B. Learned counsel for the applicant no. 2 submits that even as per the prosecution case injuries were not life threatening and as such provisions of Section 307 I.P.C. would not be made out. Learned counsel for the applicant no. 2 further submits that from the side of applicant no. 2 has also lodged cross First Information Report in respect of the same incident where the applicant's side has also suffered injuries. The applicant no. 2 has no criminal history. Applicant no. 2 is languishing in jail since 3.7.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶13

Sri Kulveer Singh, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail application and submits that the injured has suffered injuries. However, so far as the role assigned to the applicants of causing injury by screw driver on the injured he agrees that it would not travel to Section 307 I.P.C.

¶14

6-A. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶15

Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant no.2 which would disentitle the applicant no. 2 for Bail.

¶16

It is not the case of the State that the applicant no. 2 has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶17

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA for the State has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant no. 2.

¶18

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant no. 2 fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶20

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant no. 2 has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let the applicant no. 2- Banti involved in Case Crime No. 352 of 2023, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506, 342, 324 and 325 I.P.C., Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶23

i. The applicant no. 2 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶24

ii. The applicant no. 2 will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶25

iii. The applicant no. 2 will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant no. 2 shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶26

iv. The applicant no. 2 shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶27

v. The applicant no. 2 shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶28

vi. The applicant no. 2 shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶29

vii. In the event, the applicant no. 2 changes residential address, the applicant no. 2 shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶30

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

¶31

Order Date :- 29.11.2023 VMA

¶32

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rukmesh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukmesh 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Punit Verma Vs State of U.P.

Monu @ Jaiprakash Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Abhishet Kumar @ Chotu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Binna@ Siyaram Vs State of U.P.

Dayashankar Yadav Vs State of U.P.