High Court

Ravi Singh also made fire at the wife of the first informant which was missed. On the exhortation of Ravi Singh Monu Singh, present applicants and Gaurav with intention of causing death attacked on the first informant and other persons. Hearing the hue and cry Shrawan and Golu came for rescue. Again Ravi Singh exhorted that first Shrawan be put to death. At this call the accused persons are said to have attacked with farsa, iron rod, lathi-danda and seeing the villagers coming there all the accused persons are said to have fled away from the spot leaving Shrawan Kumar in almost dead condition. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that only Shrawan Giri injured has suffered lacerated wound on his head i.e. on vital part. All the three injured has not suffered any grievous injury on the vital part. The co-accused persons Rajendra, Vijay, Brijlal and Ravi Singh have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 20.9.2024 and

11.12.2024 passed in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.780 of 2024 and CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.9383 of 2024 respectively. In the statement of injured Rajmani specific role of causing injury to the alleged injured Shrawan Giri has been assigned to co- accused Ravi by lathi. Injured Ajeet Singh and Kusum Singh have assigned general role to all the accused persons. Shrawan Giri has assigned specific role of causing injury to the applicant. No weapon has been assigned by Shrawan Giri to the applicant. The other injured have assigned the farsa to applicant, which is a sharp edged weapon, to the applicant. Injury on the head of the injured Shrawan Giri is lacerated wound which cannot come with farsa and is not corroborated with the medical report. It is submitted that there is a contradiction in the statement of the injured witnesses regarding the role assigned to the present applicant as well as the statement of the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that till date only examination of P.W.1 has been completed. Examination of P.W.2 is going on since 27.9.2024. Out of 14 prosecution witnesses, only one has been examined so far. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the injured Shrawan Giri remained admitted for a period of five days in the hospital. Injury is grievous. He submits that all the accused persons with common intention came armed to commit the offence. It is not a fit case for bail. Perused the record. Perusal of the record shows that four persons are said to have been injured in the incident. Four injuries are found in the injury report of Rajmani. X-ray and NCCT of his 3 injuries was advised but later on x-ray was found NAD. Regarding Kusum Singh, her injury report, 10 injuries are found on her person. X-ray and NCCT were advised by the doctor. Injury nos. 4 and 5 are found the fracture of 3rd and 4th metacarpal bone of left hand and right hand of the injured. The said injuries are found grievous. So far as the injury of Ajeet Singh/ the first informant is concerned, in the injury report 4 injuries are found on his person and two x- rays were advised. In his supplementary report, as per x-ray report, fracture of distal fibula was found hence, injury no. 4 was considered to be grievous. As per injury report of Shrawan 4 injuries are found on the person of the injured. The doctor has advised NCCT and x-ray. In discharge report, head injury, left temporal parietal bone fracture with underlying thin temporal parietal EDH with droplet pneumocephalus are mentioned. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusal of the record, as also the facts that till date only examination of P.W.1 has been completed; Examination of P.W.2 is going on since 27.9.2024; Out of 14 prosecution witnesses, only one has been examined so far; the co-accused persons (supra) have been granted bail by this Court; the statement of the injured witness; the role assigned to the present applicant and the nature of the injury suffered by the injured; period of incarceration gone into by the applicant; the applicant is in jail since 31.7.2023; the trial is going on at a very slow pace as also keeping in view the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024 reported in (2024) 9 SCC 813 in which it has been held that howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has the right to speedy trial under the Constitution of India, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Let the applicant Gaurav Singh be released on bail on their 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:- (i) The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicants 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. (iv) The applicants 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. (v) The applicants 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. (vi) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their 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 them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The application is allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S

Ravi Singh also made fire at the wife of the first informant which was missed. On the exhortation of Ravi Singh Monu Singh, present applicants and Gaurav with intention of causing death attacked on the first informant and other persons. Hearing the hue and cry Shrawan and Golu came for rescue. Again Ravi Singh exhorted that first Shrawan be put to death. At this call the accused persons are said to have attacked with farsa, iron rod, lathi-danda and seeing the villagers coming there all the accused persons are said to have fled away from the spot leaving Shrawan Kumar in almost dead condition. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that only Shrawan Giri injured has suffered lacerated wound on his head i.e. on vital part. All the three injured has not suffered any grievous injury on the vital part. The co-accused persons Rajendra, Vijay, Brijlal and Ravi Singh have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 20.9.2024 and

11.12.2024 passed in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.780 of 2024 and CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.9383 of 2024 respectively. In the statement of injured Rajmani specific role of causing injury to the alleged injured Shrawan Giri has been assigned to co- accused Ravi by lathi. Injured Ajeet Singh and Kusum Singh have assigned general role to all the accused persons. Shrawan Giri has assigned specific role of causing injury to the applicant. No weapon has been assigned by Shrawan Giri to the applicant. The other injured have assigned the farsa to applicant, which is a sharp edged weapon, to the applicant. Injury on the head of the injured Shrawan Giri is lacerated wound which cannot come with farsa and is not corroborated with the medical report. It is submitted that there is a contradiction in the statement of the injured witnesses regarding the role assigned to the present applicant as well as the statement of the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that till date only examination of P.W.1 has been completed. Examination of P.W.2 is going on since 27.9.2024. Out of 14 prosecution witnesses, only one has been examined so far. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the injured Shrawan Giri remained admitted for a period of five days in the hospital. Injury is grievous. He submits that all the accused persons with common intention came armed to commit the offence. It is not a fit case for bail. Perused the record. Perusal of the record shows that four persons are said to have been injured in the incident. Four injuries are found in the injury report of Rajmani. X-ray and NCCT of his 3 injuries was advised but later on x-ray was found NAD. Regarding Kusum Singh, her injury report, 10 injuries are found on her person. X-ray and NCCT were advised by the doctor. Injury nos. 4 and 5 are found the fracture of 3rd and 4th metacarpal bone of left hand and right hand of the injured. The said injuries are found grievous. So far as the injury of Ajeet Singh/ the first informant is concerned, in the injury report 4 injuries are found on his person and two x- rays were advised. In his supplementary report, as per x-ray report, fracture of distal fibula was found hence, injury no. 4 was considered to be grievous. As per injury report of Shrawan 4 injuries are found on the person of the injured. The doctor has advised NCCT and x-ray. In discharge report, head injury, left temporal parietal bone fracture with underlying thin temporal parietal EDH with droplet pneumocephalus are mentioned. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusal of the record, as also the facts that till date only examination of P.W.1 has been completed; Examination of P.W.2 is going on since 27.9.2024; Out of 14 prosecution witnesses, only one has been examined so far; the co-accused persons (supra) have been granted bail by this Court; the statement of the injured witness; the role assigned to the present applicant and the nature of the injury suffered by the injured; period of incarceration gone into by the applicant; the applicant is in jail since 31.7.2023; the trial is going on at a very slow pace as also keeping in view the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024 reported in (2024) 9 SCC 813 in which it has been held that howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has the right to speedy trial under the Constitution of India, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Let the applicant Gaurav Singh be released on bail on their 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:- (i) The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicants 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. (iv) The applicants 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. (v) The applicants 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. (vi) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their 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 them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The application is allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S