High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136162 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22443 of 2025 Applicant :- Manoj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Girish Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajiv Sisodia Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
" This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedent of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A historysheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced herein above, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner." The aforesaid judgement has further been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Sudha Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2021) 4 SCC 781. 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, criminal history of the 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 at this stage. It is clarified that observations made herein above are limited to the extent of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence to be adduced uninfluenced by anything mentioned in the order. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Ishrat Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ISHRAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. By means of this application, applicant-Manoj, who is involved in Case Crime No. 098 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 109, 190, 118(1), 3(5) B.N.S, police station Sherkot, district Bijnor, seeks enlargement on bail during pendency of trial. In short compass, the facts of the case, which formed the bedrock of the present case is that the complainant Sahdev Singh got a first information report lodged at 01:38 hours on 04.06.2025 against Praduman Singh, Arjun, Nakul, Smt. Radha and Avnish (son-in-law of Praduman) for the offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352 and 109 B.N.S. with the allegations inter alia that a litigation was going on between the complainant and his Tau, Praduman Singh in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate-III, in which the warrants of the accused were withheld. At about 7.00 PM when complainant's father Anirudh Singh was sitting on the crossing of Temple, accused Praduman Singh, his wife, sons Arjun and Nakul and son-in-law Avnish came over there and started abusing his father. When complainant's father and sister stop them from abusing, all the accused with common intention to kill, assaulted them with sword and grinder, due to which they have received grievous injuries on the head and stomach. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR and he has been falsely dragged in this case due to village party bandi in the statements of the complainant Sahdev Singh and injured Anirudh Singh and Rinki Devi. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in Sessions Trial No. 1129 of 2021, the applicant has deposed against the complainant and, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.06.2025 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the injuries sustained by the injured are grievous in nature and that the victim/injured in their statements have specifically made allegations against the applicant. Learned AGA also submits that the injuries received by the injured-Rinki were "Incised wound 3.00 cm x 2.0 cm on abdomen, abdomen cutting, stomach large intestine and small intestine coming out through wound. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries are grievous in nature and general condition of the injured is very poor. Similarly, injured-Anirudh Singh has received the following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound size 2 cm x 0.4 cm with irregular and inverted margin muscle deep. Clotted blood present on cleaning on left side forehead 4 cm above left eyebrow. KUO NCCT head. 2. Lacerated wound size 5 cm x 1.2 cm with irregular and inverted margin muscle deep on palmar aspect of proximal part of right thumb. KUO. X-ray right hand AP ADN lateral view. 3. Incised wound size 6 cm x 0.6 cm with regular and clear margin muscle deep on palmar aspect of proximal part of right index finger of right hand. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that in paragraph No. 18, the applicant has mentioned that he has criminal history of three cases, whereas the applicant has criminal history of four cases, the details whereof are as under: 1. Case Crime No. 98 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 109, 190, 3(5), 118(1) BNS, police station Sherakot, district Bijnor. 2. Case crime No. 153 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC,PS Sherakot, district Bijnor. 3. Case Crime No. 248 of 2016, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 IPC, PS, Sherakot, district Bijnor 4. Case Crime No. 157 of 2013, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, police station Sherakot, district Bijnor. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that considering the criminal history of the applicant as well as gravity of offence, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that all the accused including the applicant has been assigned the general role of causing injuries to both the injured. The injuries found on the body of the injured corroborate from the versions of the first information report. I also find that both large intestine and small intestine of injured Rinki came out through the wound. The doctor opined that the injuries sustained by the injured-Rinki are grievous in nature. I also find that the applicant has the criminal history of four cases, the details whereof have been given above. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another, (2012) 9 SCC 446, Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under: "We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed." Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422, after referring a catena of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the consideration of factors for grant of bail, held as under: