Allowed

Ajay v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2024/5867/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous bail application was allowed. The court noted the FIR delay, use of unproven weapons, no opinion on fracture in medical reports, and that co-accused were already on bail, finding these factors sufficient for bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions not to tamper with evidence or witnesses.

Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63721

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5867 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ajay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tripathi,Pashupati Nath Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pashupati Nath Dwivedi, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Punit Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 58 of 2023, under Section 307 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Mahrajganj, District Raebareli.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 25.02.2023 at 18.25 hrs. against the applicant and his parents, alleging that the accused persons had assaulted the informant about 6.00 p.m. on 23.02.2023. He stated that the applicant had assaulted with a sword on his head and when the informant fell down all the accused persons had beaten him up with sticks.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. It is claimed that a sword was recovered on from the applicant's house on the joint pointing out of the applicant and his father.

¶10

The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail

¶11

application. The copies of relevant extracts of case diary have been annexed with the affidavit.

¶12

The informant has supported the F.I.R. allegations and statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶13

The medico legal examination of the informant was conducted in Community Health Centre, Mahrajganj, District Raebareli on 25.02.2023 at 7.50 p.m. which mentions 3 stitched wounds and no opinion has been given regarding nature of injury as the wounds were stitched. The informant had received initial treatment at 7.10. p.m. on 23.02.2023. The treatment papers mentions head injury and the injured was advised to undergo CT examination. The informant was discharged on 25.02.2023. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the doctor who had conducted the CT scan of the injured and has stated that the injured had suffered three injuries on his head due to which he has suffered some swelling. However, he has not stated that the injured has suffered any fracture.

¶14

A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant stating that both the other co-accused persons have already been granted bail.

¶15

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of two days; that there is no opinion regarding nature of injury suffered by the informant; that both the other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail whereas the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 27.02.2023 and without making any

¶17

observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶18

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant-Ajay be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶21

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 13.9.2024 Ram.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajay v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home 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

Similar cases

Virendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home,Lko. and Another

Man Singh Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 6 Others

Rahmanul HUDA and 3 Others Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Balrampur and 4 Others

Ramesh Chandra Bajpai and 4 Others vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) West,Hardoi and 7 Others

Anil Kumar and 2 Others vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 25,SULTANPUR and 3 Others

Sushila vs Addl. District Judge-Ist,Court No. 8, Distt. Sultanpur and Another