Allowed

Shankar Sharma v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2024BAIL/2403/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 307, 324, 34, 506 IPC for an alleged stabbing causing a single abdominal wound. Both co-accused already had bail; six prosecution witnesses including eye-witnesses were examined. The court granted bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions, leaving the section classification to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence, not pressurising witnesses, and appearing on every trial date.

Shankar Sharma vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:77114

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2403 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shankar Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Priyanka Yadav,Pradeep Kumar Maurya,Rizwanul Haque Ansari,Vaibhav Srivastava,Vishnu Pratap Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Vishnu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anant Pratap Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.148 of 2023 under Sections 307, 324, 34, 506 IPC registered at Police Station- Purakalandar, DistrictFaizabad.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 24.03.2023 at about 19:28 hours against three persons, including the applicant, stating that the accused persons had intercepted the informant's brother at 07:30 PM on 20.03.2023, the co-accused persons caught hold of him and the applicant stabbed him in his abdomen due to which his intestine came out and he fell un-concious. The medico-legal examination report of the victim mentions a solitary stabbed wound on his abdomen.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that both the co-accused persons have been granted bail and copies of their bail orders have been annexed with the affidavit.

¶11

The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail application. The Doctor who had treated the victim, has told the Investigating Officer that the injury was serious and could be fatal.

¶12

A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant disclosing his involvement in another case under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC but the applicant has not been summoned in that case.

¶13

Copies of statements of six prosecution witness recorded by the trial court have been annexed with the supplementary affidavit.

¶14

The witnesses have supported the prosecution case that both the coaccused persons had caught hold of the victim and the applicant had stabbed him causing a solitary stabbed wound in his abdomen, due to which his intestine had came out and the victim had to remain hospitalized for 18 days. The Doctor, who had examined the victim in Primary Health Centre, has been examined as PW-4 and he has also stated about the solitary injury having been caused to the victim.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the prosecution case and the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded so far, at the most an offence under Section 324 IPC will be made out and as it has been alleged that while both the co-accused persons had caught hold of the victim, the applicant had inflicted a solitary stabbed wound.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sivamani & Anr. v. State; Criminal Appeal No.3619 of 2023 decided on 28.11.2023, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where there was no allegation of repeated or severe blows having been inflicted, the case would fall under Section 324 IPC

¶17

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and he has submitted that in the case of Sivamani (Supra), the victim had suffered a solitary simple injury and, in these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held to be a case falling under Section 324 IPC. In the present case, although the victim has suffered a single

¶18

blow, the injury is a grievous injury due to which the intestine of the victim had come out and he had to remain hospitalized for 18 dyas.

¶19

Leaving this question for being dealt with by the trial Court and refraining from making any observation which may affect the outcome of the trial. However, keeping in view the facts that both the coaccused persons have already been granted bail; that there is an allegation against the applicant of causing a single injury; that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.03.2023; that six witnesses, including the eye-witnesses of the incident, have already been examined and in case of release of the applicant on bail, the possibility of witnesses of fact being examined stands ruled out, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶21

Let the applicant- Shankar Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶22

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶23

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶24

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶25

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶26

Order Date :- 21.11.2024

¶27

-Amit K-

¶28

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

Shankar Sharma v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Sharma v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Rustam @ Rustam Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Manau Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Sadar Dist. Pratapgarh and 9 Others

Rohit Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Sadhna Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate Room No. 16, Sultanpur and 7 Others

Shyam Kishor Shukla Vs Civil Judge (S.D)Lko and 2 Others

Madan Nag Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko