Rammani Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17693

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1861 of 2024

Applicant :- Rammani Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Utkarsh Misra

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant/informant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Shri Amar Singh, learned counsel for the accusedapplicant, Shri Prashant Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Rammani Tiwari for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 207 of 2019, under Section 302 and 304 I.P.C., Police Station Khargoopur, District Gonda, during trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The F.I.R. of this case was lodged by the son of the deceased, namely, Ram Kumar on 13.10.2019 against the applicant, his wife and two other accused persons alleging therein the general role of assault on the deceased with 'lathi, danda, fists and kicks' to all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. with a specific allegation of assaulting with 'lathi-danda' on the head of the deceased, to co-accused Janki Prasad.

¶11

It is vehemently submitted that during the course of investigation the investigating officer has recorded the statement of many witnesses including the informant Ram Kumar, eye witnesses Shravan Kumar, Shrikant, Ramnath, Chandra Prakash, Ram Samujh, Kevla and Chunni Lal, who all except the informant have stated that it was a case of accident as one Mansharam at the relevant point of time was driving a tractor in highly intoxicated state of mind and caused the

¶12

accident whereby the deceased has sustained injuries and died.

¶13

It is further submitted that the investigating officer during the course of investigation has also recorded the statement of two doctors who have conducted the postmortem of the deceased, namely, Dr. Ashutosh Shukla and Dr. Manoj Kumar, who both have stated specifically that the injuries sustained by the deceased may not be sustained by any 'marpeet' and the same could only be attributed to an accident and may be caused by the 'tawa' (sharp edged part of the cultivator) .

¶14

It is further submitted that after thorough investigation the charge sheet under Section 304 I.P.C. could only be filed against accused Mansharam. However, after recording of the statements of five prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.-1/Ram Kumar (informant), P.W.-2/Ram Shohrat, P.W.-3/Babu Ram (alleged eye witness) and P.W.-5/Dr. Ashutosh Shukla an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant/informant and the trial court after considering the evidence available before it, summoned the applicant and other accused persons to face trial for committing offence under Section 302 I.P.C.

¶15

It is next submitted that the application was moved to summon the applicant and other co-accused persons to face trial under Section 304 I.P.C., however, the trial court has gone a step ahead in summoning the applicant to face trial for committing offences under Section 302 I.P.C., while there is no iota of evidence pertaining to Section 304 or 302 I.P.C. so far as the applicant is concerned.

¶16

Elaborating further, it is submitted that if the whole scenario of this case is taken on its face, it was only and only the informant who had alleged imputations against the applicant and neither in the investigation nor before the trial court there was any other evidence except the statement of the informant.

¶17

It is further submitted that the two witnesses of the prosecution, namely, P.W.-2/Ram Shohrat and P.W.-3/Babu Ram has also not supported the case of the prosecution while their testimony was recorded before the trial court and one of these witnesses, namely, Ram Shohrat was also interrogated by the investigating officer, wherein he had stated that the deceased had died on account of an accident occurred due to the negligent driving of one Mansharam.

¶18

It is vehemently submitted that apart from the suspicion and apprehension, there is nothing on record which may connect the applicant with the crime and there was absolutely no cogent or

¶19

acceptable material/evidence available on the basis of which the applicant should have been summoned to face trial that too under Section 302 I.P.C.

¶20

It is also submitted that co-accused Manshsram and Pata Devi have been granted bail by the trial court as well as by this Court, vide order dated 03.03.2020 and 03.10.2023 passed in Bail Application No. 2534 of 2019 and in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11655 of 2023. Applicant is in jail in this case since 30.01.2024 and he is not having any criminal history 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.

¶21

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed heinous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶22

Shri Prashant Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/informant vehemently opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant highlighting the statement of doctor recorded before the trial court, wherein he has stated that injuries sustained by the deceased may be inflicted by the use of blunt and sharp edged weapon.

¶23

It is also submitted that the whole investigation has been conducted by the investigating officer in connivance with the accused persons of the crime specifically the 'Pradhan' of the village and it is due to this, the fair investigation has not been performed.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that applicant was named in the F.I.R. However, the allegations of general role of assault with 'lathi, danda, fists and kicks' has been assigned to all the accused persons and the specific role of assault with 'lathi' on the head of the deceased was attributed to one Janki Prasad. Significantly, the deceased has sustained eight injuries on different parts of his body. However, the fatal injury appears to have been sustained on his head which is an incised wound, while the role of assault in the F.I.R. has been assigned to Janki Prasad by 'lathi-danda'. The investigating officer after thorough investigation appears to have submitted the charge sheet only against one Mansharam on the basis of the statement of various witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, who all in one voice have stated that the deceased had died on account of an accident occurred due to the negligent driving of one Mansharam, who was driving a tractor at the relevant point of

¶25

time under intoxication of liquor. Three witnesses of fact are shown to be testified before the trial court before an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved. Out of these three factual witnesses except one informant Ram Kumar, two witnesses namely P.W.-2/Ram Shohrat and P.W.-3/Babu Ram have not supported the case of the informant, as they stated that the deceased had died on account of an accident caused by the tractor, which was driven by the co-accused Mansharam. Various submissions have been raised by learned counsel for the applicant in order to show that there was no sufficient evidence on the basis of which the applicant should have been summoned. Admittedly the applicant is not having any criminal antecedents and so far as the submissions made on behalf of the complainant/informant with regard to the fact that the doctor has stated in his statement recorded before the trial court that the injuries have been caused on the person of the deceased by blunt and sharp edged weapons, suffice is to say, as the trial before the trial court is still pending, that the evidence of a doctor or to say of any expert is only relevant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same by any stretch of imagination may not be deemed to be conclusive and the same is to be appreciated by the trial court at an appropriate stage in the background of the evidence of the factual witnesses.

¶26

In result, for the reasons mentioned herein-before, the facility of bail, in the considered opinion of this Court, may safely be extended to the applicant. Thus, the bail application is allowed .

¶27

Let the accused/applicant- Rammani Tiwari involved in above-mentioned 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:-

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and

¶33

sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶34

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.

¶35

Order Date :- 27.2.2024 Praveen

¶36

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

Rammani Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rammani Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gajraj Kunwar Jain Vs Govt. of India Thru. Assistant Director , Directorate of Enforcement Allahabad

Surendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Manish Kumar Singh @ Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sewa Ram Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Sushil Kumar Sanwal vs State of U.P and Another