Allowed

Raju Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2024/10814/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, J. granted bail to Raju Mishra in a criminal trial involving sections 323, 504, 506, 325, and 326 of IPC. The Court found it fit to grant bail considering medical reports, prima facie satisfaction, and larger mandate of Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding witness tampering, court appearance, and charge recording.

Raju Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71578

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10814 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Raju Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Harsh Vardhan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 225 of 2024, under sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 326of the I.P.C.,Police Station-Huzoorpur, District -Bahraich.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He next added that medical examination report on record indicates that the nature of the injuries are simple and caused due to friction on hard and rough surface. He further added that this report corroborates with the statements of the applicant/accused, wherein he has stated that the victim had fallen in a pit. He next added that the alleged victim seems to be fell in a pit and received injures and due to enmity the name of the present has been implicated. He submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.6.2024. He further submits that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief as he is named in the F.I.R. and the injured has received several injuries.

¶10

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that medical examination report on record indicates that the nature of the injuries are simple and caused due to friction on hard and rough

¶11

surface and this report corroborates the statements of the applicant/accused, wherein he has stated that he had fallen in a pit; the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.6.2024; coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Raju Mishra involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶17

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 23.10.2024 Anu j Sing h

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raju Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Angad Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sandeep Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sateesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Aadya Prasad Tiwari Vs State O U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Yameen Shahid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. of Lko. and Another

Taj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.