High Court · 2025
Case Details
Applicant :- Jagmohan Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Veer Singh,Pawan Kumar Maurya,Siddhant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aman Kumar Shrivastav Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Aman Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel on behalf of victim/ injured is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Aman Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the victim/ injured, 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 bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 390 of 2024, under section 351(2), 109(1), 191(2) of BNS, P.S.- Khiri, District - Lakhimpur Khiri. 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 the narration of the FIR is evident that no specific role is assigned to the present applicant and even it is also apparent that the fire, which was said to be opened by the present applicant, did not hit to the applicant as there is no specific assertion with respect to the same. Adding his arguments he submits that so far as the statement of the injured is concerned that is evident that three persons have been assigned the role of opening fire over the injured and no specific role is attributed to the applicant. He also submits that at this stage, this could not be segregated that whose fire hit to the injured. He submits that he has specifically mentioned in paragraph 10 that due to village politics the name of the present applicant has also been implanted in the FIR as well as in the statement of the victim. He next submits that the applicant has two cases criminal history which have been explained and the charge sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that he would tamper the evidences at the level of investigation and added that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.10.2024. He undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, Shri Aman Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the victim has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the present applicant is named in the FIR and there is an allegation that he has opened fire. He also submits that in the statement of the victim, the applicant has been named for opening the fire over the injured and the injured has received the fire injury and one of the pillet is stuck in the back of the injured which is still to be removed. Further submission is that the applicant has two cases criminal history as such he is not entitled for any relief. Learned AGA appearing for the State has also opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and therefore, the charge sheet has been filed against him. He submits that the applicant is named in the FIR and in the statement of the victim as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.10.2024; prima facie, the applicant is named in the FIR, the general role have been assigned to all accused persons including the present applicant and even whose fire has hit the victim is not disclosed. This is also noticeable from the statement of the victim that the victim has also been assigned the general role to three persons including the present applicant for opening fire and further the fire has hit from the back side of the victim, therefore, this is also doubtful that in such a situation the victim would have identified the actual culprit; further, the charge sheet has been filed and the State Counsel has filed to substantiate that the applicant has ever absconded from the investigation proceedings; there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Jagmohan Lal Let the applicant- involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and (4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Mohd. Sharif MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Applicant :- Jagmohan Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Veer Singh,Pawan Kumar Maurya,Siddhant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aman Kumar Shrivastav Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Aman Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel on behalf of victim/ injured is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Aman Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the victim/ injured, 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 bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 390 of 2024, under section 351(2), 109(1), 191(2) of BNS, P.S.- Khiri, District - Lakhimpur Khiri. 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 the narration of the FIR is evident that no specific role is assigned to the present applicant and even it is also apparent that the fire, which was said to be opened by the present applicant, did not hit to the applicant as there is no specific assertion with respect to the same. Adding his arguments he submits that so far as the statement of the injured is concerned that is evident that three persons have been assigned the role of opening fire over the injured and no specific role is attributed to the applicant. He also submits that at this stage, this could not be segregated that whose fire hit to the injured. He submits that he has specifically mentioned in paragraph 10 that due to village politics the name of the present applicant has also been implanted in the FIR as well as in the statement of the victim. He next submits that the applicant has two cases criminal history which have been explained and the charge sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that he would tamper the evidences at the level of investigation and added that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.10.2024. He undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, Shri Aman Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the victim has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the present applicant is named in the FIR and there is an allegation that he has opened fire. He also submits that in the statement of the victim, the applicant has been named for opening the fire over the injured and the injured has received the fire injury and one of the pillet is stuck in the back of the injured which is still to be removed. Further submission is that the applicant has two cases criminal history as such he is not entitled for any relief. Learned AGA appearing for the State has also opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and therefore, the charge sheet has been filed against him. He submits that the applicant is named in the FIR and in the statement of the victim as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.10.2024; prima facie, the applicant is named in the FIR, the general role have been assigned to all accused persons including the present applicant and even whose fire has hit the victim is not disclosed. This is also noticeable from the statement of the victim that the victim has also been assigned the general role to three persons including the present applicant for opening fire and further the fire has hit from the back side of the victim, therefore, this is also doubtful that in such a situation the victim would have identified the actual culprit; further, the charge sheet has been filed and the State Counsel has filed to substantiate that the applicant has ever absconded from the investigation proceedings; there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Jagmohan Lal Let the applicant- involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and (4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Mohd. Sharif MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench