Allowed

Vishwanath v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2024BAIL/3852/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought bail in a murder case where a general assault role was alleged against him and the specific fatal blow was attributed to a co-accused. Noting parity with two co-accused already enlarged on bail and his custody since August 2023 without criminal history, the court granted regular bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses and attendance at trial.

Vishwanath vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31157

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3852 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vishwanath Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Sheo Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,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

It is alleged in the FIR that on 06.08.2023 at about 7:30 am while the uncle of the informant was tying his cow, the applicant along with other co-accused persons came armed with lathi, danda and iron rod started beating his uncle. After hearing hue and cry, Vijay was also assaulted. It has been further alleged that Amarnath with the iron rod in his hand has assaulted both Maghuram and Vijay. Maghuram got unconscious and was admitted to CHC and further referred to District Hospital Sultanpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the postmortem report, there are four antemortem injuries. Out of those four injuries, two are of lacerated wounds, one is of incised wound and one is of abrasion. Cause of death is due to antemortem injuries. There are three antemortem injuries on the head. Main role of assaulting the deceased has been assigned in the FIR as well as in the statement of the injured to co-accused Amarnath. General role has been assigned to the applicant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Rajwati as well as Jawaharlal who were assigned similar role have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated

¶11

23.02.2024 & 02.04.2024 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 81 of 2024 & 3035 of 2024. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the bail orders of aforesaid co-accused persons.

¶12

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.08.2023. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

On due consideration to the fact that co-accused Rajwati as well as Jawaharlal who were assigned similar role have been enlarged on bail as well as considering the fact that from the statements of the injured witnesses and the eye witness, it is not clear as to who has caused the fatal blow upon the deceased; specific role of causing injury has been assigned to co-accused Amarnath; case of the applicant appears to be distinguished from the case of co-accused Amarnath, coupled with the fact that the that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.08.2023 without having any criminal history and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the grounds of parity .

¶16

Let the applicant, Vishwanath involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 208/2023, under Sections 302/308/323/504/506 IPC, Police Station - Kurebhar, District - Sultanpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like

¶17

amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

(iv) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶22

(v) The applicant 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.

¶23

(vi) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.4.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vishwanath v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwanath v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

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

Vivek Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Home, Affairs Civil Sectt. Lko.

Bal Govind vs State of U.P. Thru. Inspector of Drugs U.P. Shrawasti Region

Shobhit Yadav @ Mohit Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Atul Kulshreshtha vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dharmpal Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Satyam Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.