High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34854 of 2022 Applicant :- Abhinav Kumar @ Tillu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kavindra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,V.K. Agnihotri Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Legal Reasoning
12.The statement of the doctor cannot be read in isolation. The numerous documents available on the record regarding injuries suffered by the informant's wife and two sons, prima facie establish that all three of them have suffered numerous injuries and all three have suffered numerous fractures. 13.The aforesaid conduct of the applicant in entering the house of the informant along with numerous other persons who were all armed with iron rods, iron pipes, iron punches in their fingers and their attacking the informant, his wife and two sons causing severe injuries and multiple fractures to them is very serious and the Court cannot take a lenient view of the matter. As the applicant and the informant and his family member all are residents of the same locality and an animosity was going on between the informant's son and the accused persons, it cannot be said that the informant could not identify the applicant properly. 14.In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: - "A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society 2. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case." (Emphasis supplied) 15.In view of the discussion contained in the preceding paragraphs, I do not find it to be a fit case warranting exercise of this Court's discretion in favour of the applicant by releasing him on bail. 16.The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 4.11.2022 Ashish Pd. Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.11.10 16:47:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1.Heard Sri Kavindra Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.K. Srivastava, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record. 2.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 60 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 325, 307, 326, 427 IPC, Police Station Nawabganj, District Kanpur Nagar. 3.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged against two named accused persons, including the applicant and ten unknown persons, alleging that the co-accused persons reside in the vicinity of the house of the informant and they used to abuse and quarrel with the sons of the informant and they did not mend their ways in spite of counselling made on several occasions. On 22.02.2022, the informant's wife had given a complaint to the Commissioner of Police and she had sent another complaint to the Chief Minister through Jan Sunwai Portal. The complaint reached the police chowki in due course and the Chowki In-charge made a phone call to the informant's wife. Upon coming to know about this fact; the accused persons entered the house of the informant on 18.03.2022 at about 08:00 p.m. They were armed with iron rods, iron pipes, country made pistols and some of them were wearing iron punches in their fingers. All the accused persons attacked the informant, his wife and two sons causing serious injuries in the eye of the informant's wife and a fracture in her hand, fractures in the jaw of the elder son of the informant, fracture in the left hand of the younger son of the informant and they also committed robbery in the house. 4.It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 11.07.2022. It has also been stated in the affidavit that there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with any evidence and in such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. It is also stated in the affidavit that the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will fully cooperate in the investigation. 5.The medical examination reports of the informant's wife and sons have been annexed with the affidavit, which support the FIR allegations. The informant's wife has suffered a contused wound and an incised wound on the axillary region of her face and a fracture in her right hand. The informant's son Akash Choudhary has suffered a contused wound on his face and injures on his left eye and abrasion on his face and nose, a cut on his lower lip and injuries inside his mouth and on the tooth of upper jaw. The informant's other son Abhishek Choudhary has suffered a contusion on right forearm and he has suffered a fracture on both the bones of his right forearm. 6.The CT report of Abhishek Choudhary mentions multiple fractures in his hand. 7.The statements of the informant and those of the injured Smt. Veena Choudhary, Akash Choudhary and Abhishek Choudhary fully support the FIR allegations. 8.During investigation, the police recorded the statements of some other witnesses also, who stated that besides the allegations of robbery, all the allegations were correct. 9.In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. 10.A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State as also on behalf of the informant. Several photographs of the injured persons have been annexed with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the informant and the papers relating to treatment of the injured persons have also been annexed with the affidavit which support the FIR allegations. 11.A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing with the statements of the doctor of GSVM Hailat Hospital, who stated that Akash Choudhary had suffered a wound on his lower lip and his two teeth had been fractured and he had suffered a total of two injuries. The learned counsel for the applicant has laid emphasis on this statement of the doctor and he has submitted that the allegation is that two named accused persons had entered the house of the informant along with two other persons and the injury report mentions only two injuries having been suffered by the injured Smt. Veena Choudhary.