Allowed

Brajesh Giri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Allahabad HC17 May 2024/5258/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application challenging arrest in a criminal case involving multiple IPC sections, the court considered the nature of injuries, cross-FIR status, and precedent. It allowed bail on personal bond and sureties, noting the absence of intent to cause death in the FIR despite added charges.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each subject to standard conditions including appearance, non-commitment of offences, and interference prohibition.

Brajesh Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37899

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5258 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Brajesh Giri

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Vijay Nath Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Nath Pandey who appears for the complainant as well as learned AGA Sri Ran Vijay Singh and perused the record.

¶8

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.925 of 2023 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 504 & 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda.

¶9

In terms of the FIR initially registered for an offence under sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, it was alleged that all the accused who are eight in number came on 23.10.2023 at about 9:10 pm when the constructions of laying down of a roof were going on, a dispute was raised and after altercation, all the accused were alleged to have hurled abuses and caused injuries. It was also stated that the said persons ran way after giving threats.

¶10

In the light of the said allegations, the counsel for the applicant argues that the FIR was registered on 24.10.2023. He further argues that an FIR was also registered at the instance of the applicant on 25.10.2023. He draws my attention to the injury suffered by the family of the informant which include lacerated wounds on the head and other injuries. He further draws my attention to the x-ray report of one of the person of informant's side Ramesh Giri which shows as NAD in respect of the x-ray of the head. He further argues that the injuries suffered by the side of the applicant are also substantial injuries. It is lastly argued that the entire genesis of the dispute was relating to constructions which were opposed by one of the party. As regards the criminal antecedents, it is stated that the applicant has the criminal antecedents of one case which is disclosed in para 20 of the bail application which is an offence under sections 147, 452, 354-Kha and 323 IPC where the applicant has not been arrested and no charge-sheet has been filed till date. He thus, argues that the applicant who is in custody since 15.03.2024 may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

The counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA

¶12

strongly oppose the bail application by arguing that substantial injuries were inflicted to the side of the informant. He further argues that the severity of the injuries sustained to one of the family of the informant can be seen from the photographs handed over across the bar and the same is also a part of case diary. In the light of the severity of injuries sustained by one of the family of the informant's side, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶13

Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima-facie general allegations were levelled against all the accused of causing injuries, initially the FIR was registered for an offence under sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, subsequently, keeping in view the head injuries, section 307 IPC along with section 324 IPC were also added. In terms of the FIR itself, the genesis of the dispute was a dispute pertaining to the constructions being raised, the intent of causing the offence or causing the death is primarily missing in terms of the FIR. It is a case of cross FIR registered against both the parties by either side. The applicant has no criminal history of an offence similar to the offence in question, as such, the applicant who is in custody since 15.03.2024 is entitled for the bail. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Brajesh Giri be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

Order Date :- 17.5.2024

¶19

VNP/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Brajesh Giri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brajesh Giri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

U.O.I. Diectorate of Revenue Intelligence Thru. M Vs Ashish Gupta

Naseer @ Munnan Vs State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary Home, Civil Secretarial U.P. Government Lko. and Ors.

Anubhav Saxena Minor B.C. Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Ramakant Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Amit Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Pintu Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another