Allowed

Vikas Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2024BAIL/144/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant in a case involving allegations of murder, rioting, and assault with ransom demands. The Court found that while the FIR implicated all accused generally, no specific role in causing the fatal injury was assigned to the applicant. Given the general allegations, the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents, and prolonged custody, bail was granted subject to co

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, with standard conditions to attend hearings and not tamper with evidence.

Vikas Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17236

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 144 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vikas Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.344 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 342, 386, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda.

¶8

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on 02.05.2023, when the informant had gone for supplying RO water and reached at the spot in question, the accused, who were five named and 6-7 unknown persons, started demanding the ransom from the informant, which was refused and thereafter an altercation ensued, when the brother of the informant tried to intervene, all the accused persons including the applicant caused injuries by the use of Lathi-Danda, Rod and Silencer, which ultimately resulted in the death of the brother of the informant.

¶9

In the light of the said allegations, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the statements of the informant as well as the injured witnesses wherein the role of causing the injuries were assigned to all the co accused. He further argued that as per the post mortem report, three injuries were indicated, one being the lacerated wound on the left side of the head and two contusions over left eye and on the upper neck and the cause of death prima facie, is injury no.1 which is lacerated wound on the head. He has argued that as no specific role was assigned of causing injury to any of the accused including the applicant and there is only one injury.

¶10

It is argued that the recovery of the silencer allegedly shown from the possession of the applicant is not certified by the independent witness. It is also argued that one of the co accused Rajesh Kumar Mishra was enlarged on bail vide order dated 9.2.2024 passed by this Court, although the applicant does not claim parity with the same accused. The applicant is in jail since 4.5.2023 having no criminal history, hence the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail by arguing that as per the allegations made in the F.I.R., it is the applicant who alongwith two other co accused was demanding ransom money and thereafter on non payment thereof, started beating the brother of the informant which ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased. Considering the nature of the offence, the bail application should be rejected. However, he does not dispute that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶12

Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima facie the cause of death is one injury being injury no.1 depicted on the body of the deceased in terms of the post mortem report. Allegation of hitting are assigned to all the non accused, without there being any specific allegation against the app-applicant of having caused injury no.1, coupled with the fact that the applicant is in custody since 04.05.2023 and has no criminal antecedents, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Vikas Mishra be released on bail in the above said first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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 :- 26.2.2024

¶19

Shukla

¶20

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

Vikas Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Mishra 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Akeel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4OTHERS

Chhotu Alias Umesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Shishupal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Harshendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Shyam Bihari @ Shyam Kishor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Brijesh Kumar Prajapati Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Govt. Lko.