Nitin Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35480

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12828 of 2024

Applicant :- Nitin Vikram Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Paritosh Shukla,Sukh Deo Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 122 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 117(2), 351(2), 352 of B.N.S., Police Station Bhale Sultan Shahid Smarak, District Amethi, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the minor son of the applicant aged about 18 months is suffering from carcinoma and except the applicant, no one is to take care and facilitate proper treatment. The applicant is in jail since 18.8.2024 and till today, only one witness is being examined out of 37 prosecution witnesses.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the FIR of the case in question was lodged by the injured himself with the allegation that due to old enmity on 08.08.2024 at about 05.00 pm, when he was taking tea at Shadipur Chauraha, the applicant reached on the spot and started beating the informant with lathi-danda and kicks and punches, due to which he received several injuries. The applicant ran away by giving life threat.

¶11

It is further submitted that the informant was brought to the hospital by one Tejram and he was medically examined in which two abrasions and one contusion were found. Thereafter, the X-ray of the injured was also conducted in which 6 to 9th rib on the right side was found fractured and thereafter, he was shifted to Medicare Superspeciality Hospital. At the same time, the statement of the informant was recorded by the investigating officer under Section 180 B.N.S.S. in which he reiterated the version as contained in the FIR and also stated

¶12

that when he was beaten by the applicant with lathi-danda and kicks and punches, then he fell down on the ground on the chest side. When several persons came for his rescue, then the applicant ran away by giving life threat.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that during the course of investigation, the involvement of two persons was also shown by the witnesses, but the investigating officer failed to collect any evidence against them. It is also submitted that the informant/injured died on 16.08.2024 due to septicaemia.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant also drew attention of the Court towards the report of Medicare Superspeciality Hospital in which it is mentioned that the consent was not given by the attendant of the patient for surgery. It is a case of sudden provocation. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal antecedents and he is ready to co-operate in the trial. In these circumstances, the applicant may be enlarged on bail for facilitating proper treatment to his son aged about 18 months who is suffering from carcinoma. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Sukh Deo Singh, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail and submitted that the statement of the informant, who later on died, recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. amounts to dying declaration in which he narrated the role of the applicant for causing injury. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶16

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, going through the contents of the F.I.R., the medico legal examination report, the post-mortem report as well as the statement of the informant, who later on died, in which he categorically stated that he was assaulted by the applicant, thereafter, he ran away by giving life threat and the report of the Medicare Superspeciality Hospital also reveals that the attendant of the patient had not given the consent for surgery, hence, the informant/injured died after 8 days due to septicaemia, I am of the view that it is a fit case for bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let applicant- Nitin Vikram Singh be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶20

(ii) 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

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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

(iv) 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 IPC.

¶23

(v) 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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶24

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant 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.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶26

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

¶27

Order Date :- 13.6.2025 Shravan

¶28

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

Nitin Vikram Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Vikram Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Uma Shankar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Vijay Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Home Lko.

Raju Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ramjee Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Raj Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others