High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Applicant :- Hari Prasad Yadav Alias Hari Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sujan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nitin Srivastava,Rajesh Singh Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Heard Shri Sujan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant in the bail cancellation application, learned AGA for the State as also Shri Rajesh Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, namely, Phool Chandra son of late Ram Prasad and perused the records. The instant bail cancellation application, at the instance of the first informant/applicant Hari Prasad Yadav @ Hari Prasad son of Mitai Lal @ Mithai Lal has been filed with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party No. 2, namely, phool Chandra son of Late Ram Prasad vide order dated 7.11.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 35067 of 2024. Shri Sujan Singh, learned counsel for the first informant/applicant herein vehemently submits that the opposite party No. 2 has obtained bail from this Court by concealment of fact and by making wrong submissions, suppressing correct facts and by indicating wrong Case Crime No. as 26 of 2024 in stead of 23 of 2024. A perusal of the bail order dated 7.11.2024 reveals that the bail was granted on the ground that the opposite party had been languishing in jail since 6.2.2024. He had no other criminal antecedents and that the case lodged against him was a fruit of cross case in which both sides had received injuries and it was yet to be determined as to which party was the aggressor. Shri Sujan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that an FIR giving rise to Case Crime No. 23 of 2024 was lodged against the opposite party No. 2 along with 5 others under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 IPC, Police Station Karari, District Kaushambi leading to the arrest of the opposite party No. 2. The incident is stated to have occurred on 3.2.2024 at about 165:00 hours and FIR was lodged promptly on 3.2.2024 at 22:00 hours. The brother of the applicant received serious injuries inasmuch as, he was on ventilator in ICU for 06 days and in ICU for about 19 days. The injured is stated to have partially lost his voice. The role of causing injuries is assigned to the opposite party No. 2 by sharp edge weapon along with other co-accused persons. The opposite party No. 2 has come up with the case that a cross case had been filed from their side regarding the very same incident giving rise to Case Crime No. 179 of 2024. The FIR in the aforesaid case was got registered pursuant to an order passed on an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The Police after investigation submitted a closure report was concealed by the opposite party No. 2 and bail order was obtained by concealment. Much emphasis has been laid by leaned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party No. 2 tried to mislead the Court by stating the wrong case crime number i.e. 26 of 2024 in stead of 23 of 2024. The opposite party No. 2 also did not bring on record the complete medical report of the injured which clearly showed that the injured sustained severe head injury of left frontal partial bone fracture with fracture of ear drum with unconsciousness and loss of sensitivity. It is thus submitted that opposite party No. 2 obtained the bail by concealment of correct and complete facts and as such, the bail granted is liable to be cancelled. Per contra, Shri Rajesh Singh, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party No. 2, in opposition to the bail cancellation application submits that no concealment has been made by the opposite party No. 2 and the bail order has been obtained by stating the correct facts. So far as the allegation of stating the incorrect case crime number 26 of 2024 in stead of 23 of 2024, this Court while considering the amendment application and correction application in Bail Application No. 35067 of 2024 has found that the error in mentioning the Case Crime No. 26 of 2024 in stead of 23 of 2024 in the bail application is not deliberated and no sinister purpose can be said to be attributed to the opposite party No. 2 especially in view of the fact that the documents annexed along with the bail application i.e. certified copy of the bail rejection order, copy of FIR etc. As regards, the non disclosure of the existence of a closure report in Case Crime No. 179 of 2024 (cross case), it is submitted that admittedly a protest petition against the closure report is pending consideration as on date. The charge sheet against the opposite party No. 2 has already been submitted and no fruitful purpose will be served to put him behind bars again. It is accordingly prayed that the bail cancellation application be rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. A perusal of the record reveals that Case Crime No. 26 of 2024 in stead of 23 of 2024 has been wrongly mentioned in the bail plea, even though learned counsel for the applicant has annexed certified copy of the bail rejection order, copy of FIR etc. in which Case Crime No. 23 of 2024 has been mentioned. The said fact reveals that learned counsel has not deliberately mentioned the Case Crime No. 26 of 2024 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 35067 of 2024, but the same has occurred inadvertently due to typographical mistake. This Court after considering all facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of all the documents annexed with the bail plea, had allowed the bail application, being Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 35067 of 2024. So far as closure report in Case Crime No. 179 of 2024 (cross case) is concerned, a protest petition has been filed and the same is still pending adjudication before the Court concerned. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, long detention of applicant particularly when the charge sheet in this case has already been filed on 29.8.2024 and prosecution witnesses are being examined before the Court below, this Court is not inclined the entertain the present criminal misc. bail cancellation application. The same is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Applicant :- Hari Prasad Yadav Alias Hari Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sujan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nitin Srivastava,Rajesh Singh Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Heard Shri Sujan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant in the bail cancellation application, learned AGA for the State as also Shri Rajesh Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, namely, Phool Chandra son of late Ram Prasad and perused the records. The instant bail cancellation application, at the instance of the first informant/applicant Hari Prasad Yadav @ Hari Prasad son of Mitai Lal @ Mithai Lal has been filed with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party No. 2, namely, phool Chandra son of Late Ram Prasad vide order dated 7.11.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 35067 of 2024. Shri Sujan Singh, learned counsel for the first informant/applicant herein vehemently submits that the opposite party No. 2 has obtained bail from this Court by concealment of fact and by making wrong submissions, suppressing correct facts and by indicating wrong Case Crime No. as 26 of 2024 in stead of 23 of 2024. A perusal of the bail order dated 7.11.2024 reveals that the bail was granted on the ground that the opposite party had been languishing in jail since 6.2.2024. He had no other criminal antecedents and that the case lodged against him was a fruit of cross case in which both sides had received injuries and it was yet to be determined as to which party was the aggressor. Shri Sujan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that an FIR giving rise to Case Crime No. 23 of 2024 was lodged against the opposite party No. 2 along with 5 others under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 IPC, Police Station Karari, District Kaushambi leading to the arrest of the opposite party No. 2. The incident is stated to have occurred on 3.2.2024 at about 165:00 hours and FIR was lodged promptly on 3.2.2024 at 22:00 hours. The brother of the applicant received serious injuries inasmuch as, he was on ventilator in ICU for 06 days and in ICU for about 19 days. The injured is stated to have partially lost his voice. The role of causing injuries is assigned to the opposite party No. 2 by sharp edge weapon along with other co-accused persons. The opposite party No. 2 has come up with the case that a cross case had been filed from their side regarding the very same incident giving rise to Case Crime No. 179 of 2024. The FIR in the aforesaid case was got registered pursuant to an order passed on an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The Police after investigation submitted a closure report was concealed by the opposite party No. 2 and bail order was obtained by concealment. Much emphasis has been laid by leaned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party No. 2 tried to mislead the Court by stating the wrong case crime number i.e. 26 of 2024 in stead of 23 of 2024. The opposite party No. 2 also did not bring on record the complete medical report of the injured which clearly showed that the injured sustained severe head injury of left frontal partial bone fracture with fracture of ear drum with unconsciousness and loss of sensitivity. It is thus submitted that opposite party No. 2 obtained the bail by concealment of correct and complete facts and as such, the bail granted is liable to be cancelled. Per contra, Shri Rajesh Singh, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party No. 2, in opposition to the bail cancellation application submits that no concealment has been made by the opposite party No. 2 and the bail order has been obtained by stating the correct facts. So far as the allegation of stating the incorrect case crime number 26 of 2024 in stead of 23 of 2024, this Court while considering the amendment application and correction application in Bail Application No. 35067 of 2024 has found that the error in mentioning the Case Crime No. 26 of 2024 in stead of 23 of 2024 in the bail application is not deliberated and no sinister purpose can be said to be attributed to the opposite party No. 2 especially in view of the fact that the documents annexed along with the bail application i.e. certified copy of the bail rejection order, copy of FIR etc. As regards, the non disclosure of the existence of a closure report in Case Crime No. 179 of 2024 (cross case), it is submitted that admittedly a protest petition against the closure report is pending consideration as on date. The charge sheet against the opposite party No. 2 has already been submitted and no fruitful purpose will be served to put him behind bars again. It is accordingly prayed that the bail cancellation application be rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. A perusal of the record reveals that Case Crime No. 26 of 2024 in stead of 23 of 2024 has been wrongly mentioned in the bail plea, even though learned counsel for the applicant has annexed certified copy of the bail rejection order, copy of FIR etc. in which Case Crime No. 23 of 2024 has been mentioned. The said fact reveals that learned counsel has not deliberately mentioned the Case Crime No. 26 of 2024 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 35067 of 2024, but the same has occurred inadvertently due to typographical mistake. This Court after considering all facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of all the documents annexed with the bail plea, had allowed the bail application, being Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 35067 of 2024. So far as closure report in Case Crime No. 179 of 2024 (cross case) is concerned, a protest petition has been filed and the same is still pending adjudication before the Court concerned. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, long detention of applicant particularly when the charge sheet in this case has already been filed on 29.8.2024 and prosecution witnesses are being examined before the Court below, this Court is not inclined the entertain the present criminal misc. bail cancellation application. The same is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad