Allowed

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home Civil Secretariat Lucknow, U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2024/2047/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) allowed a bail application by Manoj Kumar in a case involving Sections 307 and 504 IPC. The court observed no specific apprehension of flight or witness tampering, prioritized the severity of incarceration, and ordered release on personal bond with sureties and standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Alright, the applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in equal amount.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. through… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:33529

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2047 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home Civil Secretariat Lucknow, U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jalaj Kumar Gupta,Santosh Kumar Kanaujia

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Learned AGA has filed supplementary counter affidavit. The same is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶9

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No.354 of 2021 under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC Police Station Phoolbehad, District Lakhimpur Kheri during trial.

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶11

It is further urged that as per the version contained in the FIR, it is alleged that the complainant on 22.08.2021 was coming back to his own village at around 3.00 p.m. The applicant and the coaccused started abusing the complainant while he resisted, it is alleged that the applicant with an intent to kill the complainant pierced a rod in the neck of the complainant, thereafter, left the site threatening the complainant.

¶12

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per injury report, three injuries have been mentioned which are said to have been caused by sharp edged weapon. It is further urged that in so far as the statements of injured has not supported the case of the prosecution even the injury report does not give any conclusive opinion regarding injuries suffered by the injured. Moreover, the manner in which the injury has been described in the FIR is not supportive of the medical report.

¶13

It is also urged that the applicant has no criminal history and

¶14

has been in jail since 23.08.2021. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts despite a coordinate Bench of this Court had passed order dated 04.01.2024 requiring learned AGA to file supplementary injury report. With the affidavit filed today the injury report dated 22.08.2021 has been brought on record which is already part of the record filed by the applicant with the bail application. Sri Ranvijay Singh learned AGA further submits that apart from this, there is no other supplementary injury report.

¶16

Considering the rival submissions as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record also considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant- Manoj Kumar involved in the abovementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(i) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(ii) The applicant 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.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶22

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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(iv) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

(v) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 29.4.2024

¶27

Harshita

¶28

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

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home Civil Secretariat Lucknow, U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home Civil Secretariat Lucknow, 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

Mohd. Asif Ansari @ Munnu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Samiullah Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rudra Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Dhruv Narayan Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Daisy and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Smt. Urmila Devi Vs Directorate of Enforcement Lko. Zonal Office Lko.