Dismissed¶14

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

Allahabad HC27 May 2024BAIL/177/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 12), CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 177 of 2024, neutral citation 2024:AHC-LKO:40403, decided 27.5.2024 by Pankaj Bhatia, J. Keywords: bail rejection; firearm injury to chest; delayed FIR; FIR against unknown persons; victim identification of accused; Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement; no weapon recovery; slipper recovered; custody since 14.8.2023; no criminal history; direction to record witness statements within three months; Medanta Hospital; Pratapgarh; shooting during morning walk.

What did the court decide?

Considering that the applicant was assigned the role of firing which hit the victim on the chest, no case for grant of bail is made out; the bail application is rejected. ¶14

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40403

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 177 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vikas Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Ojha,Anuj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh,Ashutosh Prakash

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶8

In terms of the F.I.R., it was alleged that on 10.8.2023 at about 7.30 a.m., father of the informant had gone for a morning walk when some unknown person with an intent to kill, opened fire on him which hit the victim on the chest. Subsequently, the villagers who saw the incident took him for admission to Medanta Hospital where the treatment was going on and the bullet was taken out after surgery.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons. He further argued that even as per the statement, the victim had arrived at Medanta Hospital in his conscious state, as is evident from the medical report on record as contained in Annexure No.10. He further argued that admittedly the incident took place at 7.30 a.m. at Pratapgarh and the victim was brought to the Medanta Hospital at about 11.30 a.m. on the same day without any information being given to any of the police authorities.

¶10

It is further argued that the F.I.R. was lodged at 11.22 p.m. on 11.8.2023 i.e. after considerable delay. He further argued that no one has seen the incident. He further argued that no weapon was recovered at the instance and pointing out of the

¶11

applicant and only a slipper was recovered. Thus, the applicant who is in custody since 14.8.2023 having no criminal history, may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have strongly opposed the prayer for bail by arguing that as soon as the victim received fire short injuries, it was the villagers who brought him to the Hospital, as is evident from the medical report on record. After undergoing treatment, when the victim gained consciousness, he gave statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is on record as Annexure No.8 where he specifically stated that on the fateful day, it was the applicant who had caused the firearm injuries and was seen by the victim. He also specifically stated that it was the applicant who was the resident of the same village whom the victim knew very well.

¶13

Learned counsel for the informant has further drawn my attention to the fact that after the first aid was given, the F.I.R. was lodged. The name of the applicant was taken by the victim himself on 13.8.2023 although the weapon has not been recovered from the applicant, even the fact remains that the applicant had been identified by the victim. He also stated that the victim knew the applicant very well as he was of the same village. Hence, considering the gravity of the offence, the applicant should not be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Considering the fact that the applicant was assigned the role of firing which hit the victim on the chest, no case for grant of bail is made out. The application for bail is rejected.

¶15

The trial court is directed to ensure that the statement of the fact witnesses including the victim are recorded, within a period of three

¶16

months from today.

¶17

OfÏce is directed to send the certified copy of this order to the trial court concerned.

¶18

Order Date :- 27.5.2024

¶19

Shukla

¶20

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Faiz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko.

Dileep Verma alias D.K. alias Avinash alias Chaudhary Vs The State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Govt. of U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow.

Manoj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Sarik Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Alok Kumar Mitra Vs Union of India and Another

Naushad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others