Hari Narayan Singh vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 23786 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:174028
 
Court No. - 77
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18662 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Hari Narayan Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Pravesh Yadav,Shashank Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Dubey,Sudarshan Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Sri Shashank Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Deepak Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the informant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present first bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 53 of 2023 under Sections 323, 324, 506, 308, 326 I.P.C. Police Station Sarain Lakhansi, District Mau with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

3. It is submitted that applicant is innocent and is falsely implicated in the case. According to F.I.R., it is alleged that on 27.02.2023 at about 4:00 pm, applicant with other accused persons armed with Rod, Sticks and Knife came to the house of informant and started Marpeet with the informant and her family members. It is further alleged that in said incident, Ashok Singh and Divya Prakash sustained injuries on their heads. It is submitted that informant and his family members were affixing a window on the wall of the backyard of the applicant and, therefore, the dispute arose. It is submitted that applicant is falsely implicated in the case and Hariom Singh, father of the applicant, moved and application before the City Magistrate/In-charge officer regarding the illegal encroachment by the family of first informant for public path. It is submitted that the members of informant?s family assaulted upon applicant and his family members by Rod, Sticks and Knife on 27.02.2023 and the father of applicant lodged F.I.R. against the informant and his family members bearing case crime No. 54 of 2023 under Section 323, 504 read with 34 I.P.C., Police Station Sarain Lakhansi, District Mau. It is submitted that both the parties sustained injuries and the mother of applicant sustained grievous injuries. It is contended that medical report of injured Adarsh Pratap do not corroborate the prosecution version as the finger was already amputated in an incident which occurred before two years in District Ayodhya. Doctor opined that the injures of informant are caused by hard and blunt object as such the story set up by informant is not corroborated by medical report. General and Ombnius allegations have been levelled against all the accused, no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant. Applicant has no criminal history apart from this case nor he is previously convict. Applicant in languishing in jail since 26.03.2023 and if he is granted the liberty of bail he will no misuse the same and shall cooperate with the trial.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant submitted that F.I.R. is lodged by accused just for the sake of making it a cross case, however, the injuries are fabricated. The injuries of Haday Narayan Singh is much prior to the incident as 23.02.2022 is written in the injury report of Haday Narayan Singh. It is further submitted that applicant along with co-accused armed with deadly weapons attacked on injured persons and cut down the little finger of injured Adarsh Pratap Singh. Injuries of injured persons, Suman Singh, Divya Praksh Singh, Ishwar Sharan Singh and Ashok Singh have kept under observation and sent for C.T. scan in which Haemorrhage was found in head of injured Adarsh Pratap Singh. It is also submitted that a complaint was referred on 20.02.2022 by accused persons Hariom Singh and Alok Kumar Singh just to give colour to the case and Alok Kumar Singh by giving his own affidavit before the City Magistrate denied that he has not made any complaint on 20.02.2022. The accused are criminal minded persons and brutally attacked them. Learned counsel for the informant relied upon Criminal Appeal No. 1722 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) 8139 of 2022 Ajwar Vs. Niyaj Ahmad and Anr. and drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph No. 19 of the said case and submitted that it is observed by Hon?ble Apex Court that "as a matter of fact, cross case alleging that first responded was injured during the course of investigation would indicate prima facie, his presence at the scene of incident. Once the role of the first respondent has emerged during the course of investigation followed by filing of a charge-sheet, we are clearly of the view that no case for the grant of bail was made out before the High Court". Learned counsel for the informant also relied upon the judgment passed in Imran Vs. Mohd. Bhava and Anr. reported in 2022(120)(ACC) 270 in which Hon?ble Apex Court held that "accused No. 8, who came on the motorcycle had also brutally beaten the deceased with wooden stick. In addition to these statement there is enough evidence to indicate that heinous offence was committed in furtherance of a common objective, therefore, accused respondent should not have been enlarged on bail". Learned counsel for the informant prayed to reject the instant bail application as the injuries sustained by family members of informant's side are grievous in nature and if the applicant is released on bail he may misuse the liberty of bail.

5. I have heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record. So far as case law cited by learned counsel for the informant is concerned, it is gathered from the case law that bail should not be granted just because it is a cross case, it should be decided in the light of other evidences collected by I.O. during the course of investigation. However, the grant of bail is not ruled out by both the case law. So far as merit of the case is concerned, the genesis of case is affixing a window on the wall of the backyard of the informant which was objected by applicants. Site plan (Annexure No. 5) goes to show that back wall where the window was being affixed by informant is frontage of the house of accused applicant. Three persons from the side of informant are said to have sustained injuries during the incident and injuries of all the injured were kept under observation and no supplementary report is filed. All the injuries caused to Divya Prakash Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh and Suman are found sustained by hard and blunt object and injuries of Adarsh Pratap Singh is also sustained by hard and blunt object, therefore, the injuries do not corroborate prosecution version as F.I.R. goes to show that finger of Adarsh Pratap Singh is amputated. Lacerated wounds were found to all the injured and no supplementary report is filed. Cross case is also filed by the father of the applicant as three persons were injured from the side of applicant and they were also medically examined on 27.02.2022. There is no explanation of the injuries of injured of applicant side. As per site plan, the main door of informant is not found toward western path where incident took place and the incident occurred in front of the house of the applicant itself. It is to be decided as to who is the aggressor during the course of trial. At this stage, there is no evidence to show that injuries sustained to the injured Adarsh Pratap Singh, Divya Prakash Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh and Suman are in any way grievous in nature and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

6. Let applicant Hari Narayan Singh be released on bail in the above case crime number and on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) 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, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

(v) The applicant shall also furnish an undertaking from the sureties that the properties (movable/immovable) which are the basis of accepting the surety, shall not be disposed of by them till the conclusion of trial.

(vi) The applicant shall also give an undertaking to the effect that he will not change his address without prior intimation to the trial court concerned.

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

Order Date :- 29.8.2023

Karan