Prateek Jaiswal Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

Prateek Jaiswal Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted; applicant Prateek Jaiswal to be released in FIR/Case Crime No. 68 of 2024 on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each, subject to conditions (a) undertaking to attend hearings, (b) not committing any similar offence, and (c) not making any inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure of facts or tamper with evidence.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Prateek Jaiswal is entitled to be enlarged on bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 68 of 2024 under Sections 279, 304, 427 IPC, Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow. +1 more

Court's answer

The applicant, in custody since 24.3.2024 with no criminal history except one explained case, and with nothing on record to demonstrate that enlargement on bail would affect the trial, is entitled to be released on bail; the Court declined to go into the merits.

Ratio / Principle

On consideration of the prima facie material, the offence falls under Section 304-A IPC, as there was no premeditated intent to cause the offence under Section 304 IPC.

Key takeaways

The applicant is to be released on bail in the said FIR on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each, subject to conditions: undertaking to attend hearings, not committing any similar offence, and not directly or indirectly making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure or tamper with evidence.ratio¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Pankaj Bhatia J., order dated 29.8.2024; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:58970). Prateek Jaiswal sought bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 68 of 2024, PS Mahanagar, District Lucknow, under Sections 279, 304, 427 IPC, arising out of an incident of 10.3.2024 in which a car bearing U.P.32 LT 0515, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, hit two persons who died during treatment. The FIR was initially registered under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC; Section 304 IPC was added after the deaths on the allegation of deliberate hitting. Held, considering the prima facie material, the offence would fall under Section 304-A IPC as there was no premeditated intent to cause the offence under Section 304 IPC; the applicant, in custody since 24.3.2024 with no criminal history except one settled matrimonial-discord case, and nothing on record to show that bail would affect the trial, was entitled to release. Released on personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each, with conditions against similar offences, inducement/threat/promise, and tampering with evidence.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58970

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4457 of 2024

Applicant :- Prateek Jaiswal

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Sinha,Devarshi Mishra,Pramod Shanker Shukla,Rajiv Misra,Ram Chandra Singh,Ranjan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Tripathi

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

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

The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR/Case Crime No.68 of 2024, under Sections 279, 304, 427 IPC, Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow.

In terms of the F.I.R., it was alleged that on 10.3.2024, the husband of the informant aged about 27 years who was working as a gardener was going towards road and at about 8.40 p.m., a car bearing U.P.32 LT 0515 being driven rashly and negligently came and hit him. It was also stated that one another person who was going on scooty, was also hit and thereafter the car fled away. It was also stated that during the treatment, both the said persons died.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that initially the F.I.R. was registered under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 I.P.C. The statements of two witnesses on record state that the car was being driven rashly and negligently and hit the two persons. Subsequently, after death, on the basis of the allegation that the applicant had deliberately hit, Section 304 I.P.C. was added. the applicant is in custody since 24.3.2024 and had no criminal history except an offence arising out of the matrimonial discord which has been settled. Hence, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

Learned A.G.A. has strongly opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the prima facie material, the offence would fall under Section 304-A as there was no pre meditated intent to cause the offence under Section 304 I.P.C., as such the applicant who is in custody since 24.3.2024 having no criminal history except one case, as explained above and there being nothing on record to demonstrate that if the applicant is enlarged on bail would in any manner affect the trial and without going into merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant Prateek Jaiswal be released on bail in the above said first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

Order Date :- 29.8.2024 Shukla

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