High Court · 2025
Case Details
Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that after thoroughly considering the factual matrix of the case, the interim bail was granted by this Court to the applicant vide order dated 07.01.2025. The order dated 07.01.2025 is quoted hereinunder :- "Sri Rishi Raj Mishra, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant and the same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rishi Raj Mishra, counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 397 of 2024, under sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 131, 109, 288 BNS P.S.- Lilapur District - Pratapgarh. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that even assuming the story as narrated in the first information report is correct as a whole, it states that the incident has happened in spur of the moment and due to sudden provocation. He also submits that the injuries are not on the vital part of the injured as that is on the knee of the injured. He also added that the story narrated in the first information report itself speaks that there was some hot-talk in between the parties due to the reasons narrated in the first information report and the offence is said to have committed place though, there seems to be no pre-meeting of mind or any kind of mensrea to commit such offence. He next submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he has always cooperated with the investigation proceedings and he undertakes that he would never abscond from the same. He also submits that there is acute apprehension that the applicant will be arrested by the police thus, submission is that the the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. On the other hand, Sri Rishi Raj Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that it is an admitted fact that the victim has received fire arm injury over the knee and the she had gone under the operation of the same, wherein, the bullet is recovered. He added that there is serious allegation against the applicant and he is named in the first information report and as such he is not entitled for any relief. Learned AGA appearing for the State has supported the version of counsel for the complainant. Prima facie, considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it transpires that the injury is on the non-vital part and there seems to be sudden provocation and within spur of moment, the incident has taken place though, there is no substantial evidence that any pre-meeting of mind was there. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Mohd. Ayub shall be released forthwith, in case of his arrest in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly. List/put up this matter in second week of February, 2025. In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 2 may file their counter affidavits." From perusal of the order dated 07.01.2025, it transpires that counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to substantiate that the present applicant is not cooperating in the criminal proceedings. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the instant regular anticipatory bail is hereby allowed while granting bail to the applicant namely, Mohd. Ayub till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions :- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court' (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this protection. Order Date :- 25.3.2025 Mayank MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that after thoroughly considering the factual matrix of the case, the interim bail was granted by this Court to the applicant vide order dated 07.01.2025. The order dated 07.01.2025 is quoted hereinunder :- "Sri Rishi Raj Mishra, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant and the same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rishi Raj Mishra, counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 397 of 2024, under sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 131, 109, 288 BNS P.S.- Lilapur District - Pratapgarh. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that even assuming the story as narrated in the first information report is correct as a whole, it states that the incident has happened in spur of the moment and due to sudden provocation. He also submits that the injuries are not on the vital part of the injured as that is on the knee of the injured. He also added that the story narrated in the first information report itself speaks that there was some hot-talk in between the parties due to the reasons narrated in the first information report and the offence is said to have committed place though, there seems to be no pre-meeting of mind or any kind of mensrea to commit such offence. He next submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he has always cooperated with the investigation proceedings and he undertakes that he would never abscond from the same. He also submits that there is acute apprehension that the applicant will be arrested by the police thus, submission is that the the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. On the other hand, Sri Rishi Raj Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that it is an admitted fact that the victim has received fire arm injury over the knee and the she had gone under the operation of the same, wherein, the bullet is recovered. He added that there is serious allegation against the applicant and he is named in the first information report and as such he is not entitled for any relief. Learned AGA appearing for the State has supported the version of counsel for the complainant. Prima facie, considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it transpires that the injury is on the non-vital part and there seems to be sudden provocation and within spur of moment, the incident has taken place though, there is no substantial evidence that any pre-meeting of mind was there. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Mohd. Ayub shall be released forthwith, in case of his arrest in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly. List/put up this matter in second week of February, 2025. In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 2 may file their counter affidavits." From perusal of the order dated 07.01.2025, it transpires that counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to substantiate that the present applicant is not cooperating in the criminal proceedings. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the instant regular anticipatory bail is hereby allowed while granting bail to the applicant namely, Mohd. Ayub till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions :- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court' (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this protection. Order Date :- 25.3.2025 Mayank MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench