Allowed

Vishal v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2024BAIL/2619/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed by an 18-year-old applicant accused of an attempt to murder. The court found the injury simple, the incident sudden, and lacking mens rea, making it a fit case for bail under Article 21. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions regarding witness tampering and court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties for conditions not to tamper with evidence and to appear in court as required.

Vishal Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Secrt. Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83248

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2619 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vishal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Asarey Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 694 of 2023, under Sections 307, 324 IPC, Police Station Maholi District Sitapur.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He further submits that X- ray report is evident that injury is simple in nature and there is no bone deep injury. He added that the incident is assuming correct, as it happened as a whisper of moment and there was no mens rea to commit attempt to murder. He also submits that the applicant is 18 years of age and if he is allowed to remain in jail, his whole carrier will be ruined. He also submits that the there is no independent public eye witness of the incident and due to anonymity, he has been placed in the First Information Report. He next submits that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he has no previous criminal history and is languishing in jail since 24.11.2023. He next submits that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and has submitted that the applicant is involved in committing offence and the injured person has received the injuries and, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶11

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the injury received by the injured is simple in nature; the incident was a result of sudden provocation and there was no mens rea to commit attempt to murder; there is no independent public eye

¶12

witness of the incident; the applicant is a young boy of 18 years, having no previous criminal history, coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 24.11.2023 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Vishal involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶17

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶18

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.12.2024 kkv/

¶22

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

Vishal v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home 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

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

Saiyad Mohammad Naimuddin @ Naim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Jeeshan Ahmad @ Ahmad Kalam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Kaleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Sukesh Rajan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

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