High Court · 2025
Case Details
Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla,learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh Bisen, learned 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 bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 23 of 2024, under sections 307, 504, 506, 120-B, 34 of the I.P.C., Police Station-Kurwar, District-Sultanpur. As per the prosecution story, on 28-01-2024, when son of the informant namely, Ranjeet Tiwari was going from Kurwar to his house, on the way near Julaha Basti at about 08.35 p.m., the present applicant including one Jitendra and two unknown persons, opened fire with an intention to kill the son and the son of the informant fell down and received two gunshot injuries. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated by the police. He added that in the first statement of the injured recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C.,the applicant and the other co-accused namely, Jitendra Prajapati, have been named and are assigned the role of firing and in the subsequent/supplementary statement given before the police, the role is specified by the injured himself. From perusal of the aforesaid, it transpires that the injured has stated that the present applicant opened fire and injury inflicted on the left shoulder of the injured and one of the co-accused namely, Jitendra Prajapati, had also opened fire and the pellets inflicted the injury in the abdomen of the injured. He submits that the co-accused, Jitendra Prajapati has already been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 21-08-2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8087 of 2024 and the case of the present applicant is on better footings as the injury inflicted on the body of the injured, is on the vital part as is alleged to be opened fire by the co-accused, Jitendra Prajapati, whereas, the gunshot injury, which is alleged to be inflicted on the body of the injured while opening fire by the present applicant, is on the left shoulder. He also submits that the recovery of the firearm is shown from the pointing out of the present applicant including the other co-accused person, Jitendra Prajapati and further added that the applicant has explained two cases criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 02-02- 2024 and the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. It is further argued that the trial would take considerable period of time to be concluded and the applicant undertakes that he would always cooperate and would remain present in the trial proceedings and would never abscond, if he is granted bail. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh Bisen, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is named in the first information report and the first statement of the victim/injured recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. is apparent that both the gunshots have been fired by the applicant and so far as the the injured is supplementary statement of concerned, that is of no value as the same could not have been recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. He next submits that the gunshot, which is attributed to the applicant is inflicted on the body of the injured on his left shoulder and the second gunshot is inflicted in the abdomen and therefore, the injuries are on the vital part of the body of the injured. Further submission is that the applicant has two cases criminal history and the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused, Jitendra Prajapati, which is apparent from the order dated 21-08-2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8087 of 2024 and if the applicant is been released on bail, he would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. Thus, submission is that the applicant is not entitled for bail. Learned AGA appearing for the State has also opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the nature of the offence is serious as the applicant is named in the first information report and he has been attributed the role of firing and the gunshot injuries are over on the vital part of the body of the injured and the applicant has two cases criminal history and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the first statement of the injured is apparent that two gunshots injuries are on the body of the injured and the fire was opened, one fire was opened by the applicant and next fire was also opened, but, who has opened the fire, was not specified and in the subsequent statement before the police, it has been specified by the injured himself that the fire, which was opened by the applicant, was inflicted on the left shoulder of the injured and the fire, which was opened by the co- accused, Jitendra Prajapati, was inflicted in the abdomen of the injured. The fact remains that the co-accused, Jitendra Prajapati, has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 21-08-2024 passed by a coordinate Bench of this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8087 of 2024. This court is also aware of the ratio of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha Vs. The Registrar General Jharkhand High Court & Anr. (Writ Petition (s)(Criminal) No (s) 55/2025, decided on 07-02-2025), wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that for maintaining the consistency, while hearing the subsequent application, Judge may give due weightage. Paragraphs no. 11 & 13 of the said Judgment are quoted hereinunder:- "11. This would ensure that there is a consistency in the views taken by the learned Judge in different bail applications arising out of the same FIR.
13. Further, we expect that in order to maintain consistency in the views taken by the Court, the learned Judge, who will hear the subsequent applications filed for bail, may give due weightage to the views taken by the earlier Judge, who had dealt with the bail applications arising out of the same FIR." The role of the present applicant is lesser than the role of co-accused, Jitendra Prajapati, who has already been enlarged on bail by this court while thoroughly considering the matter in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8087 of 2024. The fire, which was opened by the present applicant is inflicted on the left shoulder of the injured and that is not on vital part of body. It is also noticeable that one of the medical report of the injured is apparent that the gunshot injury was on the left shoulder as well as on the abdomen, and after the treatment of the injured, the report, which was prepared is apparent that the gunshot injury is on the chest of the injured. Therefore, there is also contradiction with respect to the injuries of the injured. Further, the applicant has two cases criminal history, which has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 02-02-2024 and he has cooperated in the investigation proceedings and the chargesheet has been filed and as such,there seems to be no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, 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. Let the applicant-Parikrama Prajapati 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, investigation or trial; or otherwise during the (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 sufÏcient 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.; (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 :- 6.3.2025 AKS ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench
Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla,learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh Bisen, learned 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 bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 23 of 2024, under sections 307, 504, 506, 120-B, 34 of the I.P.C., Police Station-Kurwar, District-Sultanpur. As per the prosecution story, on 28-01-2024, when son of the informant namely, Ranjeet Tiwari was going from Kurwar to his house, on the way near Julaha Basti at about 08.35 p.m., the present applicant including one Jitendra and two unknown persons, opened fire with an intention to kill the son and the son of the informant fell down and received two gunshot injuries. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated by the police. He added that in the first statement of the injured recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C.,the applicant and the other co-accused namely, Jitendra Prajapati, have been named and are assigned the role of firing and in the subsequent/supplementary statement given before the police, the role is specified by the injured himself. From perusal of the aforesaid, it transpires that the injured has stated that the present applicant opened fire and injury inflicted on the left shoulder of the injured and one of the co-accused namely, Jitendra Prajapati, had also opened fire and the pellets inflicted the injury in the abdomen of the injured. He submits that the co-accused, Jitendra Prajapati has already been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 21-08-2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8087 of 2024 and the case of the present applicant is on better footings as the injury inflicted on the body of the injured, is on the vital part as is alleged to be opened fire by the co-accused, Jitendra Prajapati, whereas, the gunshot injury, which is alleged to be inflicted on the body of the injured while opening fire by the present applicant, is on the left shoulder. He also submits that the recovery of the firearm is shown from the pointing out of the present applicant including the other co-accused person, Jitendra Prajapati and further added that the applicant has explained two cases criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 02-02- 2024 and the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. It is further argued that the trial would take considerable period of time to be concluded and the applicant undertakes that he would always cooperate and would remain present in the trial proceedings and would never abscond, if he is granted bail. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh Bisen, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is named in the first information report and the first statement of the victim/injured recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. is apparent that both the gunshots have been fired by the applicant and so far as the the injured is supplementary statement of concerned, that is of no value as the same could not have been recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. He next submits that the gunshot, which is attributed to the applicant is inflicted on the body of the injured on his left shoulder and the second gunshot is inflicted in the abdomen and therefore, the injuries are on the vital part of the body of the injured. Further submission is that the applicant has two cases criminal history and the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused, Jitendra Prajapati, which is apparent from the order dated 21-08-2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8087 of 2024 and if the applicant is been released on bail, he would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. Thus, submission is that the applicant is not entitled for bail. Learned AGA appearing for the State has also opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the nature of the offence is serious as the applicant is named in the first information report and he has been attributed the role of firing and the gunshot injuries are over on the vital part of the body of the injured and the applicant has two cases criminal history and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the first statement of the injured is apparent that two gunshots injuries are on the body of the injured and the fire was opened, one fire was opened by the applicant and next fire was also opened, but, who has opened the fire, was not specified and in the subsequent statement before the police, it has been specified by the injured himself that the fire, which was opened by the applicant, was inflicted on the left shoulder of the injured and the fire, which was opened by the co- accused, Jitendra Prajapati, was inflicted in the abdomen of the injured. The fact remains that the co-accused, Jitendra Prajapati, has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 21-08-2024 passed by a coordinate Bench of this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8087 of 2024. This court is also aware of the ratio of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha Vs. The Registrar General Jharkhand High Court & Anr. (Writ Petition (s)(Criminal) No (s) 55/2025, decided on 07-02-2025), wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that for maintaining the consistency, while hearing the subsequent application, Judge may give due weightage. Paragraphs no. 11 & 13 of the said Judgment are quoted hereinunder:- "11. This would ensure that there is a consistency in the views taken by the learned Judge in different bail applications arising out of the same FIR.
13. Further, we expect that in order to maintain consistency in the views taken by the Court, the learned Judge, who will hear the subsequent applications filed for bail, may give due weightage to the views taken by the earlier Judge, who had dealt with the bail applications arising out of the same FIR." The role of the present applicant is lesser than the role of co-accused, Jitendra Prajapati, who has already been enlarged on bail by this court while thoroughly considering the matter in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8087 of 2024. The fire, which was opened by the present applicant is inflicted on the left shoulder of the injured and that is not on vital part of body. It is also noticeable that one of the medical report of the injured is apparent that the gunshot injury was on the left shoulder as well as on the abdomen, and after the treatment of the injured, the report, which was prepared is apparent that the gunshot injury is on the chest of the injured. Therefore, there is also contradiction with respect to the injuries of the injured. Further, the applicant has two cases criminal history, which has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 02-02-2024 and he has cooperated in the investigation proceedings and the chargesheet has been filed and as such,there seems to be no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, 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. Let the applicant-Parikrama Prajapati 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, investigation or trial; or otherwise during the (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 sufÏcient 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.; (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 :- 6.3.2025 AKS ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench