High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47924 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Pintu Alias Ram Bahadur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailendra Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Pintu Alias Ram Bahadur, who is involved in Case Crime No. 156 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 307, 302 IPC, Police Station Harraiya, District Basti, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case in brief, informant-Gadadhar Dwivedi, who is father of the deceased, lodged FIR on 23.05.2022 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC against Ankit Mishra, Shashi Mishra, Vijay Tiwari and one unknown person with the allegation inter-alia that on 22.05.2022 at about 05:30 pm, his daughter Gudiya informed him that accused Ankit who is her brother-in-law is abusing and threatening her due to family dispute. On the said information, he along with his sons Ram, Dev and Mayank reached the spot and tried to pacify the matter. In the meantime, Vijay Tiwari (brother-in-law of Ankit Mishra) along with several persons armed with hockey, danda and rod reached there riding on motorcycle and four wheeler and started beating Ramdhar Dwivedi, Devdhar Dwivedi, Mayankdhar Dwivedi, Vivek Mishra, Uma Mishra and Shashi Mishra whereby they received serious injuries. Mayankdhar Dwivedi became unconscious. Dev received grievous injuries on head. All the injured were taken to CSC, Vikramjyoti but seeing condition of Mayankdhar Dwivedi and Devi very serious, they were referred to District Hospital, Ayodhya and thereafter they were further referred to Lucknow whereas the treatment of rest injured persons were going on in District Hospital, Ayodhya. Injured Mayankdhar Dwivedi who was admitted in Lucknow hospital on 24.05.2022 died during treatment on 26.05.2022 at about 02:15 am. Thereafter, case has been converted under Section 302 I.P.C. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case, only four persons, namely, Ramdhar Dwivedi, Vivekdhar Mishra, Gadadhar Dwivedi and Mayankdhar Dwivedi have received injuries, out of whom, Mayankdhar Dwivedi has lost his life on account of heart failure. In the F.I.R., general role of assault has been attributed to named accused. The applicant is not named in F.I.R., his name along with others came into light during investigation and on 14.09.2022 after thirteenth day of his arrest, police has shown a false recovery of an iron rod and lathi at the pointing out of the present applicant and co- accused Dinesh respectively. He next submits that injuries found on the body of the deceased cannot be caused by the iron rod but the same can be caused by lathi, which has been attributed to others. The informant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated inter alia that 15-16 persons were there who were involved in committing maar-peet, out of them, he has identified only Ranu @ Satyam who has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.02.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2747 of 2023. It is also pointed out that co-accused Shashi Mishra, Dinesh and Ankit Mishra have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 20.09.2022, 04.01.2023 and 17.01.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 41970 of 2022, 47983 of 2022 and 45640 of 2022 respectively, therefore, applicant who is languishing in jail since 31.08.2022 is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the case of present applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Shashi Mishra, Ankit Mishra and Ranu @ Satyam as there is no recovery of weapon of assault from their possession whereas at the pointing out of the applicant, iron rod which was used in the commission of crime has been recovered. Co-accused Dinesh has been granted bail without considering material evidences on record on the basis of parity of bail order of co-accused Shashi Mishra. The injuries found on the body of the injured Ramdhar Dwivedi and deceased Mayankdhar Dwivedi are grievous in nature and corroborated with the prosecution case, therefore, no case for bail is made out in favour of the applicant on the ground of parity of above mentioned co-accused persons. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that four persons have received injuries in this case, which are as under:- i-Injured Ramdhar Dwivedi has received following injuries:- "Intracranial intraparenchymal haemorrhage is seen in left frontal region measuring 15x14 mm with mild surrounding edema causing mass effect in the form of effacement of adjacent cortical sulci and ipsilateral lateral ventricle with midline shift of 4 mm towards right side. An extra axial concavo convex hyperdense collection of blood attenuation with maximum cranio cerebral thickness of 4 mm is noted in left fronto temporal convexity along bilateral tentorium cerebelli and falx posteriorly in subfalcine location S/O subdural haemorrhage. Fracture of high parietal bone extending along sagittal suture on right side." ii- Injured Vivekdhar Mishra has received two internal injuries (Head injury and Grom injury) iii-Injured Gadadhar Dwivedi has received grievous injuries. His both bones B/L forearm were found fractured and he was unable to use B/L upper lind. iv-Injured Mayankdhar Dwivedi has lost his life during treatment on 26.05.2022 at 02:15 am and as per post-mortem report, he has received following two injuries:- "(i) Contusion 7x6 cm part of Lt. side of head joint above the Lt. ear. (ii) Contusion 8x7 cm part of back of head at occipital on opining echinus part underneath both injuries mentioned above. SDH present on L side of brain." The cause of death of the deceased-Mayankdhar Dwived, as opined by the doctor, is ante-mortem head injuries. Viscera and whole heart were preserved and sent for chemical analysis. According to neurosurgery report, head injury with diffuse cerebral EDEMA and 4th metacarpal fracture were found. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant regarding parity is concerned, I find that co-accused Shashi Mishra wife of co-accused Ankit Mishra has been granted bail considering the argument that specific role of carrying weapon and inflicting injuries have been assigned to other co- accused persons. Thereafter, co-accused Dinesh has been granted bail vide order dated 04.01.2023 considering the argument that Dinesh is not named in the FIR and no specific role has been assigned to him. Co-accused Ankit Mishra has been granted bail considering the argument that role of causing injury has been assigned to Vijay Tiwari and others who were accompanying him and not to Ankit Mishra. Similarly, another co-accused Ranu @ Satyam has also been granted bail mainly on the ground that he is not named in the FIR and his name was surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Ankit Mishra, who has been granted bail. So far as case of the present applicant-Pintu @ Ram Bahadur is concerned, I find that injured eye-witness Gudiya @ Uma Mishra in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has taken the name of the present applicant along with Ranu @ Satyam and Dinesh who were involved in the crime. There is recovery of iron rod at the pointing out of the present applicant and the injuries found on the injured persons corroborate from the weapon of assault, recovered at the pointing out of the applicant. Co-accused Dinesh has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench without considering material facts that lathi which was also used in the crime has been recovered at his pointing out, nature of injuries found on the body of the injured persons as noted above, statement of eye witness Gudiya @ Uma Mishra as well as without giving any reason whereas the Hon'ble Apex Court in several decisions has repeatedly held that there is prima facie need to indicate reasons particularly in case of grant or denial of bail where the accused is charged with a serious offence. This Court is of the view that every case turns on its own fact even one additional fact and circumstance may alter the entire aspects of the matter. A judge is not obliged to pass an order against his conscious merely in order to maintain the consistency. Hence, the benefit of parity of bail orders of co-accused, as noted above, is not liable to be extended to the present applicant. In view of the above, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, nature of injuries and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 23.3.2023 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad