Ankit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14022

Court No. - 29

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8345 of 2024

Applicant :- Ankit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Kumar Trivedi,Manas Gaurav,Shyam Narayan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shyam Narayan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0079 of 2024, under Section 304 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Mahigawan, District Lucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 23.06.2024 against two accused persons alleging that due to old property dispute the accused persons assaulted the informant's father at about 4.00 p.m. on 19.06.2024. He was admitted to a hospital where he died on 22.06.2024.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶10

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter. There is a property dispute between the parties due to a will executed by the grand mother regarding which an appeal is pending before

¶11

the Settlement Officer Consolidation.

¶12

The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail application. The statements of informant and eye witness, copy of postmortem report and charge sheet have been annexed with the counter affidavit.

¶13

In the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer the informant stated that while getting his father admitted to S.N. Hospital he had told that his father had suffered head injury due to a fall from the rooftop. He stated that he had made this false statement as otherwise it would be difficult to get his father treated in a private hospital. Similar statement was given by the informant's mother (wife of the deceased). The postmortem examination report of the deceased mentions four injuries on the dead body and the cause of death has been opined to be ante mortem head injury.

¶14

A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith copy of the statement of the doctor of S.N. Hospital, who stated that the deceased was brought to his hospital on 22.06.2024 at about 4.00 p.m. and the informant and other persons accompanying the victim had told that the victim had suffered injury due to a fall from the rooftop on 19.06.2024.

¶15

The copy of initial medical report of the victim carried out by Emergency Medical Officer in CHC Itaunja on 19.06.2024 has been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit which mentions only two injuries suffered by the victim namely (i) a lacerated would on right side of head, and (ii) another lacerated wound below the injury no.1, both of which were opined to be simple in nature.

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that while getting the

¶17

victim admitted to the hospital the informant himself had stated that the victim had suffered injuries due to a fall from the rooftop; that the deceased allegedly suffered injuries on 19.06.2024, whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 23.06.2024; that a charge sheet of the offence has been submitted on 31.07.2024; that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 28.06.2024 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶18

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant-Ankit be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶21

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶22

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶23

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Ram.

¶25

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

Ankit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit 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

Ajeet Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. Home

Dileep Kumar Prajapati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Taekwondo Federation of India, Lucknow Thru. Secy. General (Authorized Signatory) Jimmy R Jagtiani vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Institutional Finance, Lucknow and Others

Rahul Chauhan and or. vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Anr.

Manish Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.Deptt. of Home Civil Secretariat Lko.

Gopal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others