Dismissed¶¶13

Dinesh Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt.

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2024/441/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; Sections 326A, 307 IPC; Case Crime No. 202 of 2022; P.S. Pachdevra, District Hardoi; petrol sprinkled on informant's brother-in-law; 46% burn injuries; charge-sheet with four eyewitnesses not yet examined; custody since 30.08.2022; liberty to reapply for bail after examination of at least four eyewitnesses; directions to Trial Court and S.P. Hardoi; Pankaj Bhatia, J.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; order dated 1.7.2024.

What did the court decide?

Considering the nature of allegations, prima facie supported by the medical evidence and the extent of injuries (46% burns) suffered by the victim, no case for bail is made out; the bail application is rejected. ¶¶13

Dinesh Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44762

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 441 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Tripathi,Ajeet Kumar Singh,Rajat Pratap Singh,Rakesh Kumar Yadav,Ravindra Singh,Shyamendra Singh,Tej Singh,Vijay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶8

2 . The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 202 of 2022, under Sections 326A, 307 IPC, Police Station Pachdevra, District Hardoi.

¶9

3 . The FIR in question was lodged against the applicant alleging that the applicant had burnt the brother in law of the informant by sprinkling petrol. The medical on record suggests that the victim was admitted with 46% burn injuries.

¶10

4. The counsel for the applicant argues that the medical itself records that no smell of any combustible material was present. He further argues that no recovery was effected from the applicant. He thus argues that the applicant who is custody since 30.08.2022 may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application by arguing that the victim suffered as much as 46% burn injuries. The charge-sheet on record suggests that there are as many as four eye witnesses of the said incident, which according to the counsel

¶12

for the applicant have not been examined so far. Therefore, the bail application of the applicant should be rejected.

¶13

6 . Considering the nature of allegations, which are prima facie supported by the medical and the extent of injuries suffered by the victim, no case for bail is made out. The bail application is rejected .

¶14

7 . However, the trial Court is directed to ensure that the statement of eye witnesses are recorded without giving any adjournment to either of the party.

¶15

8 . After recording of at-least four eye witnesses, the applicant would be at liberty to apply for bail.

¶16

9 . Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for its compliance.

¶17

10 . The Superintendent of Police, Hardoi is directed to ensure that the prosecution witnesses appear on the date fixed for recording of their evidence.

¶18

Order Date :- 1.7.2024 Arun

¶19

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

Dinesh Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Farooq Ali Alias Sheboo vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Chaman @ Lala vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Umesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Majhauwa Sumal Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel Higher Second.School Thru. Manager Ashok Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Tribhuvan Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Chhotey vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others