Allowed

Deshraj and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2024BAIL/12931/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) allowed bail for accused persons in a murder and culpable homicide case. The single judge found it a fit case for bail as the weapons assigned to the applicants could not have caused the observed incised wounds, and they have no criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for Deshraj and Santosh based on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, subject to undertaking not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

Deshraj and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83644

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12931 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Deshraj And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Srivastava,Sunaina Rastogi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Rahul Singh Rana, learned counsel for complainant as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by accusedapplicants seeking bail in Case Crime No.333 of 2023, under Sections 302, 323, 506/34, P.S. Maharajganj, District Raebareli.

¶8

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that father of the informant Lal Bahadur on 23.09.2023 at about 06:00 am while he went to attend the call of nature towards the field, due to old enmity, named accused persons namely, Hemraj, Desraj and Santosh armed with iron rod, lathi and danda started beating him in front of his house. Applicants have exhorted to kill him. Upon hearing the alarm, the informant came but he was also beaten by the accused persons due to which he has suffered injury on his head and back.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a perusal of the statement of injured Rajesh Kumar shows that general role of assault by iron rod, lathi and danda has been attributed to the applicants along with co-accused, likewise two eye witnesses namely Chandrawati and Shravan Pal have also assigned general role of assault by lathi and danda. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the injury report of the deceased shows that he suffered 11 wounds, out of which four

¶10

are incised wounds.

¶11

He also submits that incised wounds could not come from iron rod, latthi and danda, in support of which he relied on clause (b) of Medical Classification of Wounds of Chapter 23 of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, according to which injuries caused by sharp cutting weapons are incised wounds. He further submits that four incised wounds received by the injured have not been caused by weapons assigned to the applicants and co-accused persons. According to the post mortem report, there are eleven ante mortem injuries. Cause of death is hemorrhage and shock due to anti mortem injuries. The correct version of the prosecution case has not been brought before the Court. The applicants have falsely been implicated in the case. The applicants have no criminal history.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed the bail prayer however apart form the verbal denial, they could not show anything from the record to rebut the submission of learned counsel for the applicants.

¶13

On due consideration to the nature of injuries received by the deceased, the weapons assigned to the applicants and coaccused persons, general nature of allegations made in the prosecution case, the applicants are in jail since 24.09.2023 without any criminal history and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicants on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicants Deshraj and Santosh be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

(i) The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(iii) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶20

(v) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(vi) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Order Date :- 13.12.2024 R.C.

¶23

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

Deshraj and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deshraj and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shobhit Yadav @ Mohit Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Hasnain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow

Lateeq Alias Laheek Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Shadman Khan @ Mohammad Shadman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Meenakshi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko and Another

Dinesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others