Kali Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:26834

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3530 of 2024

Applicant :- Kali Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Home Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

By means of the present bail application, the applicant seeks bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0181/2023, under Sections 354-Kha, 308, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that a bare perusal of the FIR, it is alleged that the applicant along with Ghanshyam and Ram Autar is on intoxicated stage had come to the house of the complainant and misbehaved with his wife, who was lying down near the gate. The husband of the complainant seeing the aforesaid act being committed by the applicant and the co-accused to stopped the indecent behaviour and at this the applicant exhorted the other persons and at that time the applicant is said to have hit the complainant on her head with a stick and on account of the injury so sustained, she become unconscious and was admitted in a hospital. In the aforesaid context that the applicant has been arrested and is in jail since 11.03.2024.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the instant FIR is nothing but a knee jerk reaction inasmuch as it is indicated that the alleged incident as mentioned in the FIR lodged by the complainant is dated 12.04.2023 at 21:21 hours whereas the alleged incident is said to on 23.08.2022 at around 12:00 AM. It is further urged that lodging of the FIR by the complainant is purely vindictive and has been lodged after more than eight months.

¶10

It is further stated that the applicant himself had lodged an FIR against the complainant and his wife, who had hit the applicant with sticks and the FIR was lodged on 23.08.2022 at 09:16 hours wherein the applicant had clearly named Jhinnu and

¶11

Kiran (being the complainant of the FIR of Case Crime No.181/2023). It is urged that the applicant was injured and he got himself examined in a Government hospital. The injury report and the medical report has been brought on record by filing a supplementary affidavit which is taken on record.

¶12

It is also submitted that the reaction of the complainant is in response to the FIR which was lodged promptly by the applicant and in the aforesaid circumstances where the applicant has no criminal history and is being harassed at the behest of the complainant, who lodged a false FIR, hence, in the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the fact that the FIR of the complainant was lodged after much delay and there is no clear explanation in this regard. Apart from the fact that the complainant got herself examined in a private hospital and in the FIR of the complainant, there is no reference to the alleged incident which was reported by the applicant and an FIR was lodged on the very same day i.e. 23.08.2022 wherein the present applicant had already named Jhinnu and Kiran being the aggressors in the said case and incident.

¶14

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as noticing that it is a case of cross FIR, there is no clear statement as to who is aggressor coupled with the fact that the charge-sheet in both the cases have been filed and there does not appear any reason that the applicant would be in a position to influence the witness or tamper with the evidence nor there is any apprehension that the applicant at the risk of fleeing justice.

¶15

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as 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.

¶16

Let the applicant Kali Prasad involved in FIR/Case Crime No.0181/2023, under Sections 354-Kha, 308, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda 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

¶17

concerned.

¶18

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) 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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 2.4.2024 Rakesh/-

¶25

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

Kali Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kali Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar @ Pappu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Lko.

Sameer Kumar @ Surendra Mohan Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Faisal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Ors.

Swapnil Singh @ Vishal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Nand Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow and Others

Harishankar @ Dahpel and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others