Vikas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30906

Court No. - 28

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7962 of 2023

Applicant :- Vikas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shahid Akhtar,Suresh Chandra Tiwari,Sushil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ayush Singh,Sushil Kumar Singh,Umesh Dixit

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Arti Gupta Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Sessions Trial No.2523 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 267 of 2022 under Sections 147,148, 149, 323, 302 read with 34, 120 IPC, Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur.

¶8

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that general role of assault has been levelled against all the ten accused persons, including the applicant, who were armed with Lathi, Danda and Mathai (Kudal) mentioned in the FIR. Later on, the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant was recorded by the police, who is father of the deceased and is not an eye witness of the incident.The statement of injured Basant Ram Pandey, Shilpi Devi and Reshma @ Reshma Devi were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and they have assigned role of assault with stick to the applicant as well as other co-accused Ashwani Kumar and Ram Prakash and further co-accused Langu @ Rahul has been assigned the role of assault with Hockey. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the postmortem report indicates that there are five injuries; injury no.1 is fatal due to which the deceased died. As per the postmortem report, it has been submitted that injury no.1 is contusion 12cm x 08 cm present on left side of head just above left ear, which is fatal, but the same has not been ascertained as to who has caused the said injury and the cause of death is ante mortem head injury. Injury no.2 is minor in nature, which

¶9

is an abraded contusion 01 cm x 0.5 cm present on the left side of face just below left eye. Injury no. 3 is multiple stitched wound present on front of left leg 06 cm below left knee joint. Injury no.4 is a stitched wound alongwith 02 stitches present on left palm and injury no.5 is stitched would alongwith 03 stitches present on the forearm 08 cm above right wrist joint. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that injuries no. 2 to 5 are not fatal and injury no.1 is fatal due to which the deceased died.The applicant has no previous criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tempering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 18.06.2022.

¶10

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but she could not dispute the fact that even the injury no.1 is fatal but the same has not been ascertained as to who has caused the said injury and general role of assault has been assigned to all the accused persons in the FIR as well as in the statement of injured witnesses.

¶11

5. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the argument that out of five injuries, injury no.1 is fetal but the same has not been assigned as to who has caused the said injury and the argument that general allegation of assault has been ascertained to all the accused persons by the complainant, who is father of the deceased and is not an eye witness of the case, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶12

6. Let the applicant, namely, Vikas , be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(iii) 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.

¶16

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

¶17

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.4.2024 dk/

¶19

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

Vikas v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief 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

Similar cases

Saurabh Mishra and Others vs Onum Mishra and Another

Mata Bux Singh vs State of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. and 4 Others

Ram Kishore vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Langu @ Rahul Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Ram Bahadur @ Bahadur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mukesh Kumar Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home