Haripal Alias Nanhe Lal Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 79

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55432 of 2022

Applicant :- Haripal Alias Nanhe Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhan Dubey,Anil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atharva Dixit,Pranav Tiwary

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Pranav Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 489 of 2022, under Sections 302, 323, 324, 307, 504 of IPC, Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant along with other co-accused persons are stated to have assaulted the deceased person Krishna Pal with Banka and also causing grievous injuries to Brij Nandan, Gangadeen, Prem Pal and Jagdei, who had rushed at the spot to save Krishna Pal.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR was lodged by the informant u/s 323, 324, 307, 504 IPC on 18.08.2022 at about 08:00 PM. Learned counsel has further stated that the said FIR itself is delayed by one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that there is a cross version to the present FIR as the FIR No.491 was also lodged by the wife of the applicant against the deceased person and two injured persons, Brij Nandan and Yashpal. Since there being a cross version, it cannot be ascertained at this point of time as to which party was the

¶10

aggressor.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that general allegations have been levelled in the FIR which has been lodged after legal consultations. It has further argued that later on, in the statement of injured person, it has come up that the applicant is the main assailant, who has assaulted Krishna Pal on his head with Banka which he was carrying at that time. Learned counsel has also stated that false recovery of said Banka was foisted on the applicant. The applicant is working in the Indian Army and he has been falsely implicated. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.09.2022 having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant on the ground that the injured persons were examined and they have all stated that it was the applicant, who was the main perpetrator of crime, as he has assaulted the deceased person with Banka which he was carrying. The said fact has been corroborated by the primary injury report of the deceased person prepared by the treating doctor at the initial stage. Learned counsel for the informant has also relied upon the judgement of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13762 of 2021 (Ashish Mishra vs. State of U.P.) decided on 15.07.2022 whereby the bail application of the accused was rejected despite there being a cross version.

¶13

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the aforesaid judgement in which the bail application of the accused was rejected, in all seven persons had expired; four from one side and three from the other side and, as such, the case of the applicant is at a different footing to the judgement referred to by the

¶14

learned counsel for the informant. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, stage of trial, complicity of accused, severity of punishment and considering the fact that there is a cross version and the applicant is serving in the Indian Army and also the fact that the case of the applicant does not match with the judgement referred to by the learned counsel for the informant, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for releasing the applicant on bail.

¶16

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed . Let the applicant Haripal Alias Nanhe Lal involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

Order Date :- 20.3.2023 Siddhant

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Haripal Alias Nanhe Lal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haripal Alias Nanhe Lal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rusta Alias Ruchita Alias Raka Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gulshan @ Shishupal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashutosh Vs State of U.P. Adn 3 Others

Krishna Murari and Another Vs State of U.P.