Jitendra Verma @ Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Bahraich and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:79962

Court No. - 27

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1827 of 2024

Appellant :- Jitendra Verma @ Guddu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Bahraich And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

The State with its counter affidavit has enclosed a copy of the written information given to the respondent no.2 and even after receiving the same, the respondent no.2 is not represented before this Court.

¶7

Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This appeal has been preferred under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against impugned order dated 23.5.2024 passed in Bail Application No. 1062/12A/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 114 of 2024, under Sections 304, 308/34, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Rupaideeha, District Bahracih, whereby the bail application of the appellant/applicant has been rejected.

¶9

Learned counsel for appellant submits that it is a case of false implication. In FIR general role of assault with 'lathi and iron shaft of tractor' has been assigned to all the accused persons named therein, however, in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as one of the injured, namely, Sanjay Kumar Arya specific role of assaulting the deceased on his head with the iron shaft has been assigned to the appellant. However, having regard to the statement of other two witnesses, who have assigned the general role of assault with 'lathi, danda and iron shaft' to all other accused persons, it may not be ruled out that in absence of any specific allegation the fatal injuries sustained on the head of the deceased might have been caused by 'lathi or iron shaft' also and the same is subject matter of the trial.

¶10

It is also submitted that the manner in which the recovery of the 'iron shaft' as shown could not be believed on the touch

¶11

stone of probability in absence of independent public witnesses.

¶12

It is also submitted that even if the story of the prosecution is believed, it would emerge that the alleged incident had occurred in a spur of moment without there being premeditation while the dinner being served in a marriage party and therefore no mensrea to cause the death of the deceased could be attached with the appellant. He is in jail in this case since 7.3.2024. Charge sheet has already been submitted and other co-accused persons, namely, Omkar Verma and Chandra Prakash Verma @ Dablu and Arvind @ Matru have been granted bail by this Court, vide orders dated 23.9.2024 and 12.9.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1819 of 2024 and 1822 of 2024, respectively. The applicant/ appellant is having any criminal history either.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposes the prayer of bail of the appellant on the ground that fatal blow on the head of the deceased is shown to have been caused by the appellant and thus the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears to be an admitted case of the parties that the incident had occurred in a marriage function when the dinner was being served. It also appears to be admitted that the incident had occurred in a spur of moment without any pre-design. It also appears to be an admitted situation that the general role of assault has been assigned to all the accused persons in the FIR, however, later on in the investigation the specific role of assaulting the deceased with an iron shaft has been attributed to the appellant. It is also admitted that the other co-accused persons of the crime, namely, Omkar Verma, Chandra Prakash Verma @ Dablu and Arvind @ Matru have been granted bail by this Court. The appellant is not having any criminal antecedents and is detained in prison in this case since 7.3.2024. His presence may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶15

Thus, having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this court material illegality has been committed by the trial court in rejecting the prayer of bail of the appellant.

¶16

In result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the order dated 23.5.2024 is hereby set-aside .

¶17

Let appellant- Jitendra Verma @ Guddu be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the

¶18

satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(i) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence of witnesses and shall not commit any offence.

¶20

(ii) The appellant 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.

¶21

(iii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her 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.

¶22

(iv) In case, the appellant 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 appellant 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.

¶23

(v) The appellant 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶24

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.12.2024 Muk

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jitendra Verma @ Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Bahraich and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Verma @ Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Bahraich and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Master Aryayash (Minor) Thru. His Mother Smt. Lakshmi Bharti vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Ishwar Dutt Alias Ishwar Dutt Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Dhani Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Dilawar Hasan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Jitendra Verma @ Guddu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Bahraich and 2 Others