Lorik Maurya vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 2582 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 66
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53047 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Lorik Maurya
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava,Sumit Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Awadh Maurya
 
with
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53038 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Deep Chand
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava,Sumit Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Awadh Maurya
 
with
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52880 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Inner Maurya
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava,Sumit Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Awadh Maurya
 
with
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16488 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Govind Maurya
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Awadh Maurya
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.53047 of 2021,53038 of 2021,52880 of 2021, Shri. Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16488 of 2021, Ram Awadh Maurya, learned counsel for the complainant, Munne Lal learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. The applicants have approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.284 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 324, 504, 427 I.P.C., Police Station-Mehandawal, District-Sant Kabir Nagar after rejection of their Bail Applications vide order dated 29.1.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar.

3. All these bail applications arise out of same Case Crime Number, hence, they are decided by this common order.

4. The applicants in the above referred bail applications were named along with three co-accused that they formed unlawful assembly and assaulted the persons from the complainant side wherein brother of the informant died.

5. Learned counsel for the respective applicants have vehemently argued that the evidence collected during investigation is not sufficient to indicate that it was a case of unlawful assembly. Counsel for the applicants fairly submitted that the bail applications of two named accused namely Narad Maurya and Moti Chaudhary were rejected vide orders dated 20.7.2021 and and 8.3.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.7093 of 2021 and 16559 of 2021 taking note that the deceased had sustained four injuries and according to post mortem report lungs were found punctured and four persons from the complainant side received injuries.

6. In this regard, counsel for the applicants submitted that it is a case of cross version wherein five members of accused side also received injuries. There is no specific role assigned to the applicants and in any case this case will not travel beyond Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. The applicants are languishing in jail since since 7.10.2020, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicants undertake that if enlarged on bail, they will never misuse their liberty and will co-operate in the trial.

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail applications and submitted that all the accused persons have formed unlawful assembly and caused injuries to five persons from the complainant side and later on one person succumbed to injuries. He also pointed out that the role of the applicants is similar to the co-accused Narad Maurya and Moti Chaudhary who have been denied bail.

8 LAW ON BAIL

A. "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail" (State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand @ Baliay : (1977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 535). Power to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC, is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner. (see Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh :(2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav Vs State of U.P.:(2016)15 SCC 422).

B. "The considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out." [Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118)]. "There is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused" [State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21]. In Manno Lal Jaiswal Vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 89 Supreme Court has observed that, "when the Accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code also and when their presence has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual Accused is not significant and/or relevant."

C. "....It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge." (Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors:( 2001) 4 SCC 280).

D. "....It is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment...." (Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118) and also (Ms. Y versus State of Rajasthan and Anr :2022 SCC OnLineSC 458).

E. "....There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail. However, the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused." (Manoj Kumar Khokhar (2022)3 SCC501).

9. On the basis of above mentioned facts as well as law on bail, it appears to be a case where all the accused persons formed unlawful assembly and caused injuries to five persons from the complainant side and one injured subsequently died.

10. The nature of the injury shows that the injured have suffered multiple injuries and it also shows that there was a participation of all the accused persons in the offence.

11. As discussed above in aforesaid paragraph and also taking note of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Manno Lal Jaiswal (supra) as well as two accused persons have been denied bail, I do not find any force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants.

12. Bail applications are rejected.

Order Date :- 12.5.2022

SB