Bail application for alleged fatal knife assault during group attack; court rejected bail citing the applicant's specific and gruesome role in causing death, but directed the trial court to record injured witnesses' depositions within four months and allowed revival of the bail plea thereafter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55086
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4237 of 2023
Applicant :- Rakesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Pratap Singh,Ravindra Shukla,Sushilendra Kumar Sahu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1 . Supplementary afÏdavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.
3 . The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 201 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307, 302, 324, 34 IPC, Police Station Kadipur, District Sultanpur.
4 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on 16.05.2022 at about 5 PM, the informant was sitting with her father in law, brother in law and husband in her home, when all the accused named in the FIR on account of an old enmity, came and were armed with iron rod, knife etc and started hurling abuses, subsequently all of them attacked the informant, her husband, her brother in law and her father in law. It was specifically stated that one of the co-accused Amar Nath had attacked her husband with an iron rod. It was also stated that two of the co-accused Santosh and Harish caught hold of the husband of the informant and the present applicant Rakesh, caused a knife injury in the abdomen, which resulted in his death.
5. It is argued by the counsel for the applicant
that the applicant is in custody since 18.05.2022 and has no criminal history. He further argues that only charge has been framed so far and not even one witness has been examined. He lastly argues that other co-accused were enlarged on bail vide separate orders.
6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application by arguing that specific allegation of causing knife injury was assigned to the applicant and considering the grievous nature of the injury, which resulted the death, the bail application should be rejected.
7 . Considering the submissions made at the Bar, as per the allegation contained in the FIR, it is clear that four persons including the applicant had come with a common intention of causing the injuries, the specific role of causing incised wound, which resulted in the death of the deceased was assigned to the applicant. Considering the gruesome manner in which the applicant has allegedly killed, no case for bail is made out. The bail application is accordingly, rejected .
8 . The trial Court is directed to ensure that the testimony of the informant and the statement of the brother in law and father in law, who are injured in the present case and named in the charge sheet is recorded within a period of four months from today without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the party.
9 . The Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur is directed to ensure that the said deposition as directed above, is recorded and the witnesses appear for their examination.
10 . The applicant would be at liberty to revive his bail plea after four months when the fact witnesses are examined.
11 . Let a copy of this order be sent to the
concerned trial Court as well as the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur for its compliance.
Order Date :- 9.8.2024 Arun
Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Should the applicant be granted bail where the specific role of inflicting a fatal knife injury was assigned to him in the FIR?
Should the trial court expedite recording of testimony of injured eyewitnesses?
7 provisions across 1 enactments
Rakesh
State of U.P. thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
