Allowed

Jai Prakash v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2024BAIL/1622/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail in a criminal trial involving sections 323, 504, 506 and 307 IPC. The court noted discrepancies in the medical report regarding the injury date and lack of identification by the injured party, holding that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond with two sureties in the like amount subject to specific conditions regarding evidence tampering and surrendering.

Jai Prakash vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14881

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1622 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jai Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Shankar Verma,Ruchi Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary.

¶9

Heard Shri Uma Shankar Verma, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Jai Prakash for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 168 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 307 I.P.C., Police Station Mahruwa, District Ambedkar Nagar, during trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the accused-applicants while pressing the bail application submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶12

It is further submitted that the F.I.R. of the instant case has been lodged by the father of the injured on 19.10.2023 and he was not the eye witness. However, injured Shiv Mangal Upadhyaya in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not identified as to who from amongst the four accused persons has assaulted him from behind and, thus, it could not be inferred at this stage as to who from the accused persons was the author of the injury.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant while drawing the attention of this Court towards the medical report of the injured placed as Annexure- 8 and supplementary report placed at Annexure No.7 to the bail application, it is vehemently submitted that no visible injury was found on the person of the injured and he has not

¶14

even complained of any pain on temporal part of his head. However, surprisingly the fracture has been detected in the supplementary report on his temporal bone, which primafacie casts a doubt pertaining to the injured sustaining injury in the incident and it appears that after he was examined by the doctor on 28.11.2023 he has sustained injury no.1 of the supplementary report thereafter. Identically placed co-accused person, namely, Nandram and Ravi as well as Ram Autar have been granted bail by this Court, vide order s dated 2.2.2024 and 7.2.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 1190 of 2024 and 1404 of 2024.

¶15

It is next submitted that applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 21.10.2023 and he is having criminal history of one case which has been explained in paragraph no.3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 16.2.2024 and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶16

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and the supplementary medical report states that the fracture of temporal bone has also been found and, thus, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Perusal of the record, in the background of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties would reveal that at the time of first medical examination on 28.11.2023 the applicant has not complaint of any pain on temporal part of his head, rather he has complained of pain on his left hand on left side of his head, left ear and on chest. However, in the X-ray on the basis of which, the supplementary report has been prepared, the fracture of temporal bone has been found. Various submissions have been raised by learned counsel for the applicant in this regard in order to show that this injury might have been sustained by the injured after his medical examination on 28.11.2023. The injured Shiv Managal Upadhyaya in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has also not identified as to who from amongst the four accused persons has assaulted him from behind. Identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Nandram, Ravi and Ram Autar have been granted bail by this Court. Applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 21.10.2023 without any criminal antecedents and the presence of the applicant may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶18

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing

¶19

any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed.

¶20

Let the accused/applicant- Jai Prakash involved in abovementioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶25

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶26

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶27

Order Date :- 20.2.2024 Muk

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jai Prakash v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. 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

Ashish Kumar Tripathi Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Home Deptt. Lko.

Monu Tiwari @ Rohit Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 4 Others

Nisar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Arun Kumar Singh and Another Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Dhiraj Bahadur Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.