Allowed

Dilram Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2023BAIL/46296/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to the applicant under Section 324, 504, and 307 IPC, observing that injuries were muscle deep but not life-threatening and the weapon use did not reflect intent to commit culpable homicide.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount.

What the court decided

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:223259

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46296 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dilram Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Achyut Jee

¶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 applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per allegations in the first information report, it is alleged that the applicant has assaulted the injured with knife as a result of the same the injured has suffered injuries. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that injured has suffered two injuries, which are muscle deep both are at scapula. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to the supplementary report, where the injuries have been found to be simple in nature. Injuries are muscle deep although the knife has been used, however, the case would not travel beyond Section 324 IPC. Even the doctor has not opined that the injuries are life threatening. He further submits that even in two attempts the applicant has not been able to cause any injury which would be life threatening, which itself is reflective of the intention of the applicant. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 02.09.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the informant Sri Achyut Jee has opposed the bail application by submitting that injuries are on scapula although it is muscle deep, however, the place of injury and weapon used are reflective of the fact that there was intention to commit culpable homicide.

¶10

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

¶11

5-A. Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶12

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

10-A. In the present case, it is to be seen that the allegations are with regard to assault with knife. Injured has suffered two injuries which are muscle deep although the injuries are at scapula, however, the doctor has not opined that the injuries are life threatening. The knife being a weapon of assault and the depth of injuries are muscle deep is reflective of the fact that applicant has no intention of commit culpable homicide.

¶18

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 has made out a case for bail. The bail application

¶19

is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant Dilram Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 463 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 307 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia, 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:-

¶21

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶22

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶23

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶24

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶25

v. The applicant 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.

¶26

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶27

vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶28

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

¶29

Order Date :- 24.11.2023 S.Prakash

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dilram Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Dilram Yadav 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

Afzal Alam Vs State of U.P.

Monu Vs State of U.P.

Mehboob Alam Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Veena Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Lakhan Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sabir @ Tinchu Vs State of U.P.