High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48309 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6518 of 2025 Applicant :- Vimla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Tyagi,G.A.,Kapil Tyagi Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shahrukh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashish Tyagi, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure / under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Vimla, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 288 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 302, 307, 341 & 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad. 4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 12.05.2024 by Sagar Mavi against the applicant and 16 other accused persons alleging therein that he is a resident of Ghaziabad. On 05.05.2024 his father was attacked by accused Pawan Bhati, Charan Singh, Vimla, Chanchal and Kavita. The police had got him admitted in a Government hospital. Again on 11.05.2024 at about 9.00 PM when he and his father were going to their home from Prem Nagar Colony then near pipeline road the accused persons together surrounded them on which they tried to run in which he somehow managed to run but an iron rod was thrown on him which hit his head due to which he received injury on his head but the accused persons were successful in surrounding his father and assaulted him with sharp weapon, pistol and country-made pistol due to which he died. The informant immediately informed the A.C.P. of the police on phone after which the police reached the place of occurrence and took his father to hospital where the doctors declared him to be dead. His report be lodged and action be taken. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that common & general role has been assigned to all the accused persons. It is submitted that co-accused Sonu Baghel @ Sunil, Gaurav, Pooja, Ankur @ Kaley, Kuldeep, Smt. Kavita and Gagan have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 05.11.2024, 18.11.2024, 12.12.2024, 19.12.2024, 21.01.2025, 31.01.2025 and 03.03.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 37275 of 2024, 41052 of 2024, 43659 of 2024, 46525 of 2024, 954 of 2025, 3075 of 2025 and 7266 of 2025, the copy of the said orders are annexed as Annexure-18 & 19 to the affidavit and the copy of bail application of co-accused Gagan has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. It is submitted that the applicant is a lady. While placing paragraph 42 of the affidavit it is submitted that no recovery of any incriminating material has been done either from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. It is submitted that in fact there was no eye witness present at the place of occurrence. The prosecution story is totally cooked up just in order to falsely implicate and harass the accused persons. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 46 and is in jail since 12.05.2024. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the first information report. It is submitted that even in a previous incident on 05.05.2024 the deceased Vikram Mavi was assaulted and was admitted in the hospital by the police. The applicant was named along with 04 other accused persons and had participated in it after which in the present incident she is again named and has participated in it. It is submitted that the first informant was examined on 11.05.2024 at 09.59 PM and was found to have received four injuries being a laceration, two swellings & tenderness and one abrasion and further the deceased Vikram Mavi as per the postmortem examination report was found to have received 40 injuries on his person and the cause of death was opined as under:- "Cause of death is shock as a result of antemortem injury to head produced by blunt force impact. Injuries No.-1 to 38 are caused by blunt force impact. Injuries No.-39 and 40 are caused by single edged sharp cutting/stabbing weapon." 7. It is submitted that the applicant thus was involved twice in assault of the deceased. It is submitted that the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report. There was a previous assault on the deceased on 05.05.2024 in which also the applicant was involved. Subsequently in the present incident on 11.05.2024 the applicant was again named and involved in which the first informant received injury and his father who was the injured in the previous incident is the deceased. The deceased has received 40 injuries. The first informant is an injured witness in the present matter. The records show that co-accusd Smt. Chanchal applied for bail before this Court which has been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27926 of 2024 (Smt. Chanchal Vs. State of U.P.). Further co-accused Rohit Bhati also applied for bail before this Court which has also been rejected by the same co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 427325 of 2024 (Rohit Bhati Vs. State of U.P.), both the orders are collectively annexed as Annexure-17 to the affidavit. 9. The present case thus is a case in which one person has received injury and is an injured witness whereas one person who was attacked second time after some days of the previous assault has been done to death. The applicant is the mother of co- accused Chanchal who has been denied bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. No ground for bail exists. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
Decision
11. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad