Allowed

Bajrangi v. State of U.P. Thru. Pein. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2024BAIL/9214/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to the applicant Bajrangi in a criminal matter involving affray and hurt. The court noted conflicting allegations between mutually liable FIRs, unexplained injuries, and the applicant's jail detention without prior record, deeming it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to specific conditions regarding trial attendance and non-tampering.

Bajrangi vs State of U.P. Thru. Pein. Secy. Deptt. of Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58869

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9214 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Bajrangi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Pein. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 20.06.2024 at about 11:00 pm while the brother of the complainant was guarding his paddy field which was surrounded by wire, the accused persons along with two unknown persons came and started uprooting the pillars and wire. Upon being restrained, the accused persons by hurling abuses ran for beating brother of the complainant, however, he somehow fled from the spot and came home and informed about the incident his elder brother Ram Raj on phone. Thereafter, when Ram Raj and Jagmohan went on the spot where the accused persons were armed with fawra, bhala and lathi, both of them were badly beaten by the accused persons.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIRs have been lodged by both sides. Three persons have sustained injures from the applicant side and two persons from the complainant side. In the statement of the injured, entire story of the prosecution in the FIR has been changed. In that statement, it has been alleged that the injured persons have been beaten by lathi and danda. No grievous injury has been sustained by any of the injured. General allegations have been levelled on all the accused

¶9

persons. It is not clear that who has caused which injury. True and correct version of the prosecution case has not been narrated while lodging the FIR. It is also submitted that while filing charge sheet, the investigating officer has dropped Section 147 and 148 IPC. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.07.2024 without having any criminal antecedent.

¶10

It is further submitted that 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.

¶11

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

¶12

On due consideration to the fact that general allegations have been levelled on all the accused persons; the injuries sustained by the members of applicant's side have not been explained, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.07.2024 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.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Bajrangi, involved in Case Crime No. 341/2024, under Sections 147/148/323/325/308/504/352 IPC, Police Station - Payagpur, District - Bahraich, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

witness.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

Order Date :- 29.8.2024 R.C.

¶23

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

Bajrangi v. State of U.P. Thru. Pein. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajrangi v. State of U.P. Thru. Pein. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Sonu Faujdar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko.

Syed Mehdi Hasan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Sonu Faujdar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko.

Monu Rathore Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Munesh Kumar @ Munesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Ravindra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another