Allowed

Ajay v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2023BAIL/50031/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the court prima facie found the applicant's role vague with simple injuries sustained. Noting co-accused had already been granted bail and no evidence of tampering, the court allowed the bail prayer.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Ajay to be released on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties, conditional on not tampering with evidence or witnesses and appearing on fixed dates.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:236224

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50031 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ajay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh,Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 417 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 & 34 of I.P.C., Police Station- Bilari, District- Moradabad, during pendency of the trial.

¶8

3.Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Six named accused, including the applicant, are alleged to have assaulted the informant and his son Atul. As per the medical report, the informant sustained three injuries, which were found simple in nature whereas Atul sustained eighteen injuries. Out of said injuries, fifteen injuries were found simple in nature whereas as per the x- ray report, three injures sustained by the injured, Atul are fracture of thumb, ring-finger and toe. It is next contended that the applicant did not have any intent to murder the injured. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. It is further contended that the co-ccused, Bhoora and Monu, have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48544 of 2023. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no. 4 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 25.10.2023 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the

¶11

record, this Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The injuries sustained by the informant were found simple in nature. The injury nos. 7, 10 and 15 on Atul were found on non vital part of the body. The coccused, Bhoora and Monu, have been granted bail by this Court. At this state, it cannot be said that the applicant had any intent to kill the injured. Further, the applicant has remained confined for almost two months and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

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

¶13

i. the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence;

¶14

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

¶15

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 13.12.2023 Aditya

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay 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

Sonu Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Aasiv Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Umar Vs State of U.P.

Leelu Vs State of U.P.