High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26989 Court No. - 35 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6338 of 2025 Applicant :- Anuj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar,Raghvendra Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Singh,G.A.,Shivam Yadav Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Mr. Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.154 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 304, 34 IPC, Police Station Soraon, District Prayagraj. 3. Prosecution story is that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the informant Baccha Lal stating therein that on 28.04.2024 at about 8.00 am, Ram Avtaar, Ankit, Aditya alias Nate, Anuj, Anil. Jai Singh were making construction in front of his house and when he has made objection then all accused persons came together and attacked upon him and his family members with Sticks, Iron Rods and illegal weapons due to which Sarita w/o Pappu, Nanhe alias Deepak s/o Bachha Lal, Anantha d/o Ram Kripal, Bhola s/o Bachha Lal and Prem Lata received serious injuries but his wife Prem Lata ran away inside the house and some how save her life. It is further alleged that after going inside the house, the accused persons also assaulted her wife with illegal weapons and sticks and rods due to which she also got serious head injuries. It is further alleged that injured Prem Lata was brought to CHC Soraon for treatment, thereafter, she was referred to Beli Hospital Prayagraj for better treatment but she died on the way to the hospital. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Initially, the impugned FIR has been lodged under Section 304 IPC but during investigation the Investigating Officer has made an entry in the case diary on 28.04.2024 whereby he dropped the Section 304 IPC and added Sections 302 & 307 IPC, thereafter, during course of investigation also, he dropped the Sections 307 & 302 IPC and added Section 304 IPC and submitted charge sheet against the applicant and co-accused Ankit on 29.07.2024. After submission of charge sheet, the court below has taken cognizance against the applicant and co-accused Ankit. Further submission is that as per FIR, there are six accused persons including the applicant and the role assigned to the applicant for causing injury to the deceased by plastic pipe,which is not a lethal weapon whereas iron sabbal has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Further submission is that the recovery, which has been shown from the possession of the applicant, is false, fabricated piece of evidence intended solely to justify the criminal prosecution of the applicant in the present case. Alleged recovery also lacks support from any independent or public witness, thereby casting serious doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution story. Further submission is that upon perusal of the spot inspection report, no bricks or stones were found at the place of occurrence, which also raises serious doubt about the prosecution story. Only general role assigned to all accused persons. No specific role assigned to the applicant, thus, the specific fatal injuries inflicted on the deceased Prem Lata remains unspecified and unknown. As per FIR, the applicant was armed with plastic pipe whereas as per post mortem report of the deceased Prem Lata, the injuries nos. 1 and 2 were fatal which could not have been inflicted by a plastic pipe, consequently, the involvement of the applicant in the present case is baseless and driven by ulterior motives. As per postmortem report, cause of death is mentioned due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of ante mortem head injuries. Further submission is that as per version of the FIR as well as statement of witnesses, offence under Section 304 IPC is not attracted in the present case because there was no enmity, motive or intention of the applicant to commit such crime in as much as prosecution witnesses also failed to attribute any strong motive against the applicant for committing crime in question, therefore, in absence of any strong motive false implication of applicant in the instant criminal case cannot be ruled out. As to who was the author of the said injury is also not clear. Essential ingredients of the offence under Section 304 IPC are completely missing. Prima facie no offence under Section 304 IPC is made out against the applicant. 5. Further submission is that similarly placed co-accused Ankit against whom role for causing injury to the deceased by axe was assigned, has already been granted bail by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.39373 of 2024, copy of bail order has been annexed as Annexure No.18 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.05.2024 having previous criminal history of one case in which applicant is on bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR as well as charge- sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court, however, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. 8. Let the applicant-Anuj Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions : (i) 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. (ii) 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. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. (v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. 11. With the above observation/direction, the instant bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Ajeet Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad