Dismissed

Manoj Kumar Verma v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko.

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2024/2031/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench rejected the bail application of an accused accused in a Section 307 IPC case. The court held that considering the gravity of the offence, the complicity of the applicant, and reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Dablu Kujur, he should not be enlarged on bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

Manoj Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57356

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2031 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Nath Pandey,Girish Kumar,Kunwar Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akshay Kumar Singh,Amrendra Kumar,Anil Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1.Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Pratul Pratap Singh and Surya Nath Singh on behalf of complainant is taken on record.

¶7

2.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

3.The present bail application has been filed by accusedapplicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.332 of 2021, under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶9

4.In the prosecution case, it is alleged that applicant who is brother-in-law of the victim/injured on 08.08.2021 at about 11:30 pm came inside her room/office and demanded money from her for drinking liquor when she refused, he started beating her with kicks and fists and to save her life, she ran after opening the gate towards a corridor however, the applicant chased her and inflicted several injuries upon her person by knife.

¶10

5.Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is in jail since 16.08.2020. Applicant has incarcerated enough. Trial is at the advanced stage therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶11

6.Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that it is a heinous offence. Applicant is unmarried. He submits that merely because the trial is about to conclude cannot be a ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. In support of his contention he has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Dablu Kujur versus State of Jharkhand reported in [(2024) 6 SCC 758].

¶12

7.Perused the record.

¶13

A perusal of the statement of the injured as well as the injury report of the injured clearly shows the complicity of the applicant who is the sole accused in this case. As many as eleven incised wounds have been suffered by the injured, the prosecution case is supported by the injury report as well as the statement of injured. As per the status report received from the learned trial court, the trial is fixed for defence evidence.

¶14

Considering the gravity of the offence, the complicity of the applicant and the judgment of Supreme Court in Dablu Kujur (supra), I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. The bail application is thus, rejected .

¶15

8.However, the earned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶16

9.Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned trial court forthwith.

¶17

Order Date :- 22.8.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manoj Kumar Verma v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Verma v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Barkat Khan and Ors. Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and Anr.

Pankaj @ Hansraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Dheeraj Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Crime and Investigation Deptt. Lko and Another

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

Rajesh Mishra @ Rajesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gurjant Singh Dhillon Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.