Allowed

Mahendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Allahabad HC8 May 2024/2393/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 304 IPC regarding a riot and culpable homicide, the High Court granted bail to the applicant, noting his general role in the FIR, lack of prior criminal history, and the benefit of parity in bail orders for co-accused with similar roles.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties under specified conditions of appearance and conduct.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35709

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2393 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mahendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Singh,Alok Srivastava,Manjusha Kapil Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sapana Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Alok Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 18.07.2022 in Case Crime No.255 of 2022 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 304 I.P.C., P.S.- Hasanganj, District-Unnao.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein general role of assault with 'lathi, danda, sariya and phawda' has been assigned to five named and two unnamed/unknown persons as well as in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, however, in the postmortem report of the deceased, two fatal injuries of the nature of contusion have been found on his head beneath which the parietal and frontal bone was also found fractured and apart from it, three other simple injuries have been noticed. The cause of death was shown 'shock' as a result of ante-mortem head injuries. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that that no recovery has been made from the possession or on the pointing out of the present applicant. The applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the co-accused person namely, Smt. Laxmi, who has been assigned similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 25.01.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1304 of 2023 and co-accused Smt. Gudiya, having similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.03.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3537 of 2023, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present

¶10

applicant may also be enlarged on bail. He has further submitted that charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant undertakes that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail, if granted.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Therefore, without entering into the merits of the case; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of F.I.R.; the fact that general role of assault with 'lathi, danda, sariya and phawda' has been assigned to five named and two unnamed/unknown persons including the present applicant in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of the prosecution witnesses; the applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; the co-accused persons namely, Smt. Laxmi and Smt. Gudiya, who have been assigned similar role, have been enlarged on bail and undertaking of the applicant that he shall abide by all conditions of the bail order and cooperate in the trial court proceedings, I find it appropriate to release the present applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let applicant- Mahendra Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(iv) 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.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶20

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶21

Order Date :- 8.5.2024 Mohd. Sharif

¶22

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

Mahendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

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

Nishant @ Guddu and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Munna Kabadi @ Munna Khan Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Sanjay Rawat Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Lalu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lucknow

Vijay Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Work Deptt. Lko. and Others

Dharmendra Kumar PNO.214077140 and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Affairs U.P. Shashan Sectt. Lko. and Others