Allahabad High Court
Jai Bahadur Mishra Second Bail ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 27 April, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14486 of 2021
Applicant :- Jai Bahadur Mishra Second Bail Appl.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. The present second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in pursuance to the First Information Report registered as Case Crime No. 130 of 2018, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station - Tulsipur, District - Balrampur.The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court by means of order dated 13.09.2021, passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1594 of 2019.
3. While rejecting the first bail application of the applicant this Court has observed that the deceased who was uncle of the complainant, while working in his fields had a fight with accused persons with regard to cattle of the deceased having destroyed the crops of the accused, the dispute escalated and immediately thereafter, the applicant assaulted the deceased with 'hasiya' on his stomach due to which intestine of the deceased came out and due to loss of blood and others injuries sustained during the said incident, the deceased succumbed soon thereafter. It has also been noticed that there is ocular evidence available with regard to the incident in question.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant in the second bail application is only that applicant is in jail for the last three and half years, which in the facts of the case where at the most allegation against the applicant would fall under Section 304 I.P.C. and he has served more than half of the sentence and hence has prayed that applicant be enlarged on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirath Vs. State of M.P., 2018 (3) JIC 788 (SC), where while hearing the criminal appeal the Apex Court considered the fact that when death was committed with sudden fight without pre-mediation, offence would be under Section 304 I.P.C.
6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that looking into the gravity of the offence and injuries caused to the deceased as well as the recovery of blood-stained weapon and evidences on record, the applicant is not entitled for bail and hence present second bail application is liable to be rejected.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It is noticed that in fact accused who had come to the field of the deceased armed with 'hasiya' and after small altercation, assaulted the deceased with the weapon 'hasiya' and caused such grievous injuries to the deceased that he died. At this stage this Court is unable to appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant that offence would fall under Section 304 I.P.C.
9. In the case of Bhagirath (supra) findings were recorded in a criminal appeal where all the evidence was available before the Apex Court. In the present case, facts are clearly distinguishable and trial is under way and such finding cannot be recorded while deciding a bail application.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties keeping in view the grievous nature of the offence committed by the applicant, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
11. The second bail application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.4.2022
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
