Allowed

Shambhu Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2023BAIL/9348/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the court permitted a correction to the prayer clause and granted bail to the applicant. The court noted the applicant, accused under general allegations along with others, had no criminal history and earlier received anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in equal amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9348 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Shambhu Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yashwant Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant prays that due to mistake in the prayer clause, prayer has been made with regard to applicant to release him on anticipatory bail in place of bail and, therefore, he may be permitted to correct the prayer clause of the instant application.

¶6

In view of the above, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer clause of the instant application during the course of the day.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the informant, is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.604 of 2022, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Muhammadabad, District Mau during pendency of the trial.

¶10

FIR of the present case was lodged against as many as 13 persons including applicant under Sections 34, 323,324,504 and 506 IPC and according to the FIR all the 13 persons through wooden sticks and sharp edged weapon made assault and due to assault made by them three persons sustained serious injuries.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegation against the applicant is totally false and baseless and

¶12

applicant has been made accused in the present matter on the basis of general allegation along with 12 other persons and in fact he neither participated in the incident nor he ever caused any injury to anyone.

¶13

He further submitted that although in the incident it is alleged that three persons sustained injuries but out of three persons, injuries sustained to two persons were found simple and only injured Tribhuwan sustained injuries on his head and after X- ray and CT Scan of his head it revealed that his parietal bone was found fractured.

¶14

He next submitted that there is no evidence on record which can show that applicant is the author of this injury and the injuries sustained to injured Tribhuwan could only be categorized as grievous and it cannot be said that injuries were dangerous to life. He further submitted that during investigation applicant and other co-accused persons have been released on anticipatory bail as at that time Section 307 IPC was not added but thereafter when Section 307 IPC was added then applicant was again arrested.

¶15

He next submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 4.1.2023.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant actively participated in the present matter along with his 12 other associates and they caused injuries to three persons and injuries sustained by injured Tribhuwan was dangerous to life as his frontal parietal bone was found fractured but both the learned counsels could not dispute the fact that neither in the statement of witnesses nor in the FIR there is any specific role has been attributed to applicant and merely on the basis of general allegation he has

¶17

been made accused in the present matter along with 12 others and he is not having any criminal history to his credit.

¶18

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

¶19

Although from the record it reflects that in the incident three persons sustained injuries but out of three persons, injuries sustained by two persons were simple in nature and only injuries sustained on the head of one injured Tribhuwan was grievous one as his parietal bone was found fractured but in the instant matter along with applicant 12 other persons were made accused and no specific role has been assigned to anyone including applicant and on the basis of general allegation applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with 12 others. Applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 4.1.2023 and earlier he was released on anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge concerned, therefore, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

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

¶21

Let the applicant- Shambhu Prajapati 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:-

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 7.4.2023 SKM

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shambhu Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shambhu Prajapati 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

Ankit Bhatt Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Arif Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Mourya Vs State of U.P.

Shahbaz @ Jishan Vs State of U.P.

Rahees Vs State of U.P.

Gollu @ Sarfaraj Vs State of U.P.