High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39969 of 2020 Applicant :- Ramesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Bahadur Maurya,Ashutosh Tiwari,Kamlesh Kumar Singh,Sushil Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bindu Kumari Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J. Counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the applicant placed before the Court the mention slip that learned counsel for the first informant has refused to appear before the Court as he has no instructions from his client. The mention slip is placed on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.42 of 2020, under Sections 304, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Dheena, District- Chandauli. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that both the parties are co-tenure holders. Due to enmity of the land, the applicant has been falsely implicated. There is allegation that due to dispute of land on 02.07.2020 at about 10:00 AM, all the named accused persons started assaulting Subedar with lathi, danda and when Pinki Devi, Pradeep and Sarvjeet came to rescue him, they were also thrashed by them. The villagers came and mediated the dispute. In fact, in this incident all the three named accused persons also sustained injuries. As per postmortem report, cause of death is found to be septicaemia as a result of pus in both lungs, so it is argued that the death of the deceased was caused not by the injuries but due to pus in both the lungs. It is further argued that after the physical altercation, the deceased did not get himself properly treated and on 07.07.2020, he is said to have died. As per postmortem report, only a contusion of 12cmx9cm is found on the right side of his head, 0.5cm above right ear and the contusion of this length cannot be caused by lathi. The deceased might have fallen on the floor and might have sustained injuries. Co-accused Mansha Devi has already been granted bail by the trial court itself, hence, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.07.2020. Hence, the prayer for bail is made. Learned A.G.A opposed the bail application and submitted that all the injured witnesses have assigned this applicant a specific role of assaulting with lathi on the head of the deceased. From the perusal of record, it is found that the physical altercation on 02.07.2020 at 10:00 AM among them is admitted to both the parties, as the accused persons are also said to have sustained injury in this incident. If we go through the injury reports, appended with the paper book, the accused persons have sustained simple injuries. Co-accused Mansha Devi and Ramesh, the present applicant have sustained only one injury each and Priti Yadav has sustained two injuries. All their injuries are found to be simple in nature. While from the prosecution side four persons are said to be injured and one Pradeep is said to have died. It is true that after first aid all the injured persons from the prosecution side came back to their homes, but when the condition of the deceased deteriorated, he was admitted to the hospital. Later on, he succumbed to the injuries. Though, cause of death of the deceased is shown to be septicaemia as a result of pus in both lungs, but at the same time, a contusion of 12cm x9cm over the right side of the head of the deceased, is shown. The statement of doctor is not placed before the Court. The injury reports of all the four injured persons from the prosecution side are placed before the Court wherein in the injury report, two contusions are shown on the parietal region and scapular region of the deceased and there was complaint of vomiting. He was referred to District Hospital for X-ray. Injured Subedar is said to have sustained four injuries, one contusion in the temporal regular region oral, second contusion in his palm, both his third and fourth injuries are in his middle fingers. X-rays were advised. Injured Sarvjeet Yadav is said to have sustained four injuries, two in the parietal region, one in the parietto occipital region and one abrasion on the nose. Pinki Yadav, the wife of the deceased, is shown to have sustained three injuries. Though, the injuries of Pinki Yadav and Sarvjeet Yadav, are shown to be simple but injured Subedar was referred to District hospital and there his injury was found to be simple subject to the x-ray report. Injured Pradeep is said to have succumbed to the injuries. All the witnesses have assigned the specific role of assault by lathi on the head of the deceased to the present applicant only. Though, the bail on the ground of parity of co-accused Mansha Devi is claimed, but in my opinion, the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of Mansa Devi, who was assigned the general role of assault. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, the applicant cannot claim the benefit of the parity. Thus, after perusing the record in the light of submission advanced at the bar, taking overall view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of accusation and the period of detention already undergone without commenting on the merit of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is hereby rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the hearing and decide the aforesaid case, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 1.12.2022 Radhika Digitally signed by RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA Date: 2022.12.03 17:50:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad