Allahabad High Court
Brijesh Kumar @ Teetu vs State Of U.P. on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19747 of 2018
Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar @ Teetu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamalakar Dixit
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amrit Shanker Dubey
Connected with
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20259 of 2018
Applicant :- Shyam Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuraj Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amrit Shanker Dubey
Connected with
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8058 of 2018
Applicant :- Nirmla Devi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amrit Shanker Dubey
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Since all the three bail applications are having same case crime number, police station and district, therefore, with the consent of the contesting parties, all are being adjudicated by a common order.
All three bail applications filed on behalf of the applicants - Brijesh Kumar @ Teetu, Shyam Singh and Nirmla Devi relating to Case Crime No.184 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504 506, 308, 307, 302, 34, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Khairgarh, District Firozabad.
Heard Sri Kamalakar Dixit, Sri Raghuraj Singh, Sri Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants (in Bail Application Nos.19747, 20259 & 8058 of 2018), Sri Amrit Shanker Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Prashant Kumar, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. and Sri Sheetal Prasad Chakravorty, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is argued that the FIR has been lodged on 17.12.2017 against two named and two unnamed persons for the incident dated 16.12.2017 stating therein that there was a dispute between accused Bhola and uncle (Tau) of complainant, namely, Prabhu Dayal regarding some animals and due to this accused Bhola and his wife Jyoti with two unknown persons assaulted the uncle of complainant as a result of which uncle of informant sustained injuries. It is argued that applicants are not named in the FIR and their name surfaced during investigation. Learned counsel has also pressed the bail applications on the ground of detention as the applicants Brijesh Kumar @ Teetu, Shyam Singh and Nirmala Devi are languishing in jail since 29.12.2017, 30.12.2017 31.12.2017 respectively. It is next contended that there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Accordingly, they request for bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. Learned counsel for the complainant also states that in an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.29755 of 2019 an order for expediting the trial in S.T. No.219 of 2019 has been passed by a co-ordinate Bench today. In view of this, trial in the aforesaid case may be expedited.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicants, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicants. Thus, the bail applications stand rejected.
However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same as expeditious, as possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment. in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicants fully cooperate in conclusion of the trial.
Office is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court to the concerned Court below forthwith.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Anand Sri./-
