Allowed

Mahaveer @ Rajhans v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2024BAIL/8796/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed bail in a murder-cognizable case under Section 302 IPC, where diverse basis of offence was dispute about gas agency allotment and premeditated intent was not established. Signed Off: Ashok Kumar Verma. Order Date: 19.9.2024.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of like amount each with conditions to attend trial and not tamper with evidence.

Mahaveer @ Rajhans vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64839

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8796 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mahaveer @ Rajhans Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Mishra

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajmal Khan,Arjun Singh Somvanshi

¶7

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶8

1. Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.

¶9

2 . Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and Sri Ajmal Khan, learned Counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶10

3 . The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.229 of 2023, under Sections 34, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 302 IPC, Police Station Pali, District Hardoi.

¶11

4 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that when the informant was coming home from the agricultural field, the accused, who are five in number, started hurling abuses, which was resisted and thereafter a dispute occurred. It was also alleged that the applicant allegedly caused injuries by the use of Banka which resulted into substantial injuries and the death on the same day. The statement of the deceased, who was also the informant, was recorded, in which, the FIR version was reiterated. The postmortem report indicates the presence of as many as 10 injuries which include an incised wound on the left side of the head, which also appears to be the cause of death.

¶12

5 . The Counsel for the applicant argues that admittedly as per the statement, the dispute arose on account of allotment of a gas agency, which was allotted to the applicant, for which, both sides are nursing grudge and on the said date, on account hurling abuses allegedly the incident took place. He further argues that the allegations to implicate the applicant under Section 302 are apparently missing as the mens rea with an intent to cause murder is apparently not stated.

¶13

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned Counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail prayer by arguing

¶14

that specific role of causing injury by the use of Banka was attributed to the applicant and considering the fact that the deceased died on account of the injuries inflicted by the applicant, the bail application should be rejected.

¶15

7 . In rejoinder, the Counsel for the applicant argues that the coaccused have been enlarged on bail vide separate orders, although, he does not claim parity. It is further argued that the sole eyewitness shown in the list of witnesses being the PW 2 Ram Pal has already been examined and the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.06.2023 having no criminal history except a case, which is also in between the same party, under Sections 402, 406 IPC.

¶16

8. Considering the submissions made at the bar; prima facie , as the incident took place on account of a dispute, the genesis of which is an allotment of gas agency; the premeditated intent and mens rea so as to implicate under Section 302 IPC is apparently missing coupled with the fact that the sole eyewitness has already been examined and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶17

9. Let the applicant Mahaveer @ Rajhans be released on bail in the abovesaid first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶18

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶19

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶20

(c) 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

Order Date :- 19.9.2024 akverma

¶22

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

Mahaveer @ Rajhans v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahaveer @ Rajhans v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. 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

Jai Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lucknow and 3 Others

Ashlendra Pratap Singh @ Dabbu Singh (in Fir Ashlendra @ Dabbu Singh) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Amit Savita @ Anshu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Santlal Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Rahul Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Imamuddin @ Nanguttu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others