Amrendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36330

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4998 of 2024

Applicant :- Amrendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Akshay Kumar Singh,Palak Jawa Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vineet Kumar Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-respondent and Sri Vineet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record.

¶7

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No.71 of 2024 under Sections 147, 323, 307, 504 IPC, Police Station Sheogarh, District Raebarelli during trial.

¶8

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

¶9

Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the instant FIR is an outcome of previous animosity and enmity between the respective parties.

¶10

It is further submitted that the complainant as well as the applicant belong to the same ancestry. Even earlier, there has been litigation between the parties relating to respective land and it is in this context, instant FIR has been lodged and falsely implicated the applicant. The complainant and his family has strong political links and has influence in the area.

¶11

It is further submitted that as per the version contained in the FIR, it is alleged that on 24.02.2024 at around 11.30 a.m., the applicant and the other co-accused hatched the conspiracy to attack the complainant. It is in this context that the brother of the complainant Sri Ramendra Singh was attacked with an axe and the injuries received by Ramendra Singh were grievous and he had fallen at the site almost in a half dying condition. It is also alleged that the complainant had also received injuries with an axe. The police had taken the brother of the complainant for medical attention.

¶12

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the

¶13

allegations are absolutely false. While lodging the FIR, no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant it is alleged that the informant has leveled general allegations towards all accused, indicating malafide intention of the informant towards the accused.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that in the instant scuffle, it was the applicant who received large number of injuries and this has not been appropriately considered.

¶15

It is further submitted that the cross FIR has also been lodged, it is alleged that the applicant has no criminal history but the fact is that a large number of persons on the side of the applicant has also received injuries. Actually the dispute emerged as the complainant and his brothers were illegally cutting the trees belonging to the applicant and his family.

¶16

It is further stated that the applicant does have any criminal history and is in jail 04.03.2024 and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Sri Vineet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant submits that Ramendra Singh, the injured is still under treatment at the SGPGI and has submitted that on account of serious injuries , the injured is hospitalized for more than two moths and he has provided photocopies of the documents relating to the treatment of Sri Ramendra Singh. Upon perusal of the same, it indicates that prima facie that Sri Ramendra Singh did receive injuries but the treatment in SGPGI for such a long period is for other ailments as well as not connected with the injuries as aforesaid. Even though, he may have been admitted, initially with the aforesaid condition but the fact remains that neither Sri Vineet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant nor the learned A.G.A. could dispute the fact that insofar as the version contained in the FIR alleging that the complainant and his brother received grievous injuries caused by attack with an axe could not be substantiated nor any such version was there in statement of the daughter which is part of case diary, produced before the Court.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid as well as the fact that the applicant and the complainant have had previous skirmishes between them and apparently the applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 04.03.2024, 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,

¶19

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.

¶20

It has further been pointed out that one of the co-accused namely Upendra Singh who has been granted bail by this Court by means of order dated 06.05.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4843 of 2024.

¶21

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let the applicant- Amrendra Singh 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:-

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(iii) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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

¶28

liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶29

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

¶30

Order Date :- 9.5.2024 Asheesh

¶31

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

Amrendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Niyamat Ali Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Deshraj @ Khuta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ashish Yadav @ Ashish Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Soni and 2 Others vs Sanjai Kumar and 2 Others

Balram Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Kaushal Kishor @ Kaushal and Ors. vs Deputy Director Consolidation Barabanki and Ors.