Allahabad High Court
Kallu @ Kariya vs State Of U.P. on 31 October, 2017
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 993 of 2016
Applicant :- Kallu @ Kariya
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Kumar Yadav,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi,Manish Tiwary
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pawan Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merit by this court vide order dated 3.9.2015.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially the first information report of the alleged incident was lodged by the deceased himself under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. against the applicant and two others. In the first information report, it has not been mentioned that the applicant caused injury to the deceased on his head with piece of brick. Thereafter, in the statement of witnesses it has come that the applicant had caused injury to deceased on his head. In fact, the applicant has not caused any injury to deceased on his head. It has further been submitted that in the cross -examination of p.w.-1 Ram Awadh, it has come that when he reached on the spot, he found the deceased in injured condition which shows that witness Ram Awadh ( p.w.-1) was not present on the spot at the time of alleged incident and he reached on the spot after the incident. It has further been submitted that there is cross version of the alleged incident. From the side of applicant one person has also sustained injury. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence, false allegation has been made against him. There is no criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 14.3.2015.
Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in the statement of eye witnesses it has come that the applicant had caused injury to deceased on his head. In post-mortem report, the cause of death of deceased has been shown comma and shock as a result of ante-mortem head injury, therefore, applicant is not entitled for bail.
Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Kallu @ Kariya involved in Case Crime No.116 of 2015, under Section 304/34, 323/34, 504, 506 IPC Police Station Jhunsi District Allahabad 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 will not tamper with the evidences.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and he will cooperate with the trial.
3. The applicant will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.
In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 31.10.2017/Gss
