Komal v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Rejoinder affidavits have been filed by learned counsel for the applicants in Court today, which are taken on record.

Heard Sri Yashpal Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mohammad Sadab Khan, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The above-mentioned applications have been filed by applicants- Komal, Jagjivan Ram @ Jagjivan, Mamta Devi and Sangeeta seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.87 of 2022, under sections- 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section- 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Mangalpur, District- Kanpur Dehat.

As per the allegations in the F.I.R., daughter of one Jagjivan Ram had eloped with the first informant's nephew Jeetu for which an F.I.R. was lodged by Jagjivan Ram; they nurtured feeling of enmity with first informant's brother Vishwanath; on the date of occurrence at about 9:30 in the night on 28.03.2022, 7 persons including the applicants Komal and Jagjivan Ram, who lay in wait for him, attacked Vishwanath causing him near fatal injuries; he sustained a number of injuries on his head, neck, right cheek, back, arms and other parts of the body; the incident was witnessed by the first informant, his brother Jay Chand and several others; the accused persons escaped taking him as nearly dead; the injured was taken to the civil hospital in a very serious condition where he had been fighting for his life.

It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the F.I.R is delayed by 2 days and no plausible explanation has been offered; the statement of the injured has been recorded with an inordinate delay of 9 days, therefore it cannot be taken as a truthful statement; some of the eye-witnesses have not taken the name of some of the accused persons; the only injured Vishwanath has added certain names in his statement for ulterior motives; the applicants are innocent and that they have no criminal history; they shall abide by the conditions, if any, imposed by this court, therefore, their liberty may be protected by grant of anticipatory bail.

The application for anticipatory bail is ardently opposed by the other side highlighting the fact that in this case, two of the applicants are named in the F.I.R.; it is argued that the defence of general allegations is of no utility when a group of people attack certain others in a premeditated manner; certainly their act is covered by application of section- 34 /149 I.P.C.; it is not expected that in the F.I.R. a specific role shall be assigned to each one of the assailants who form a larger group; the injured Vishwanath sustained a number of injuries of so serious a nature that he had to be admitted to the hospital and that his wounds had to be stitched by giving him about 350 stitches; this fact has come to light in the statement given by the doctor who treated the injured; my attention has been specifically drawn to the injury report which shows a number of wounds caused by sharp-edged weapon; it is argued that had the injured not given timely medical assistance, he could have died because of bleeding from the deep wounds he sustained. The applicant has not been able to show that there has been any probability of false implication. My attention has also been drawn to the statement given by the lone injured Vishwanath, wherein he has said that it were the applicants- Mamta and Sangeeta who caught him in a tight grip so that he could be attacked without failing; it is argued that specific role has been assigned to the applicants- Mamta and Sangeeta too. The investigation has made the picture clearer and that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Prima facie, it does not appear that the F.I.R. has been lodged against them with the purpose of bringing disgrace or cause humiliation to them by having them arrested in a mala fide manner. It may also be kept in mind that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised in suitable cases only. The powers under section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be utilized in a routine manner and definitely as a substitute for regular bail. This discretionary power calls for existence of facts of the kind where the court is satisfied that its interference is necessary to further the cause of justice and to prevent misuse of process of law.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it fit case to grant benefit of anticipatory bail.

However, any of the observations made herein shall not be taken as a comment on merits of the case and the court below shall be at liberty to form its own opinion at any stage of the case. SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 14.3.2023 Saif