Genu @ Dushyant Pratap @ Dushyant Pratap ... vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 14982 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Genu @ Dushyant Pratap @ Dushyant Pratap ... vs State Of U.P. on 1 May, 2024

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:77983
 
Court No. - 76
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3720 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Genu @ Dushyant Pratap @ Dushyant Pratap Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Avanish Kumar Srivastava,Manu Raj Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
 

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Manu Raj Singh and Sri Avanish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.128 of 2023, under Sections 307, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Sakeet, District- Etah, during the pendency of trial.

4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.42699 of 2023.

5. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith one unknown person is stated to have started hurling abuses at the son of the informant on 19.6.2023 at about 08:00 p.m. On being asked to refrain from doing so, the applicant is stated to have fired at him causing gunshot injury to him, and thereby run away from the scene of occurrence.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The place of occurrence has been changed from agricultural fields to house later on. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant is stated to have fired thrice at the father of the injured person, who happens to be the informant, but he has not sustained any firearm injury. Learned counsel has stated that it is stated by the prosecution that the single gunshot fired by the applicant is stated to have hit the son of the informant in the abdomen.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that in all five prosecution witnesses have been examined in court and the trial is moving at a snail's pace, as such there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial.

8. The PW-1 is the informant who has changed the version and has stated that the fire by the applicant hit his son and passed through and through, but the said bullet has been found embedded in L-3 region of vertebral column. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the CT-scan report, which has been filed at page-40 of the supplementary affidavit dated 10.2.2024. Learned counsel has stated that how could a bullet be found embedded in L-3 region of the vertebral column and also pass through. The bore was .315 which is a bullet and not pellets. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that from the place of occurrence two used cartridges of .315 bore were recovered by the Investigating Officer, meaning thereby, the prosecution story stands falsified.

9. The place of occurrence was utter darkness and there was no occasion for identification of the applicant. It is further stated that PW-1, who had given ocular version, has stated in his statement that he is not the eye-witness. The said fact has been mentioned in the cross-examination filed as Annexure-12 to the affidavit filed with bail application.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is also stated by the witnesses that the injured person was unconscious after being hit by the gunshot for a period of 6-7 days. The said story stands falsified from the statement of the doctor who has been examined as PW-5 and he has stated in his statement filed as Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit dated 10.2.2024 that the injuries were grievous but not dangerous to life. They could have been rendered dangerous to life, if he was not treated. The doctor has also stated that the injured person was in conscious state at the time of admission at the hospital and he was not told the name of assailants by him. The injuries could have been caused from a distance at least more than 5 ft.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there are several other contradictions in the statement of witnesses regarding the number of fires and all the witnesses have stated that they had not seen the occurrence rather they reached the place of occurrence after hearing the gunshot. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the initial injury report filed by the counsel for informant, which has been annexed as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit dated 20.1.2024, which indicates that injured person was admitted at hospital at 08:00 p.m. and was referred to higher centre at 08:20 p.m. Learned counsel has stated that the said story stands falsified from the fact that the FIR also indicates the time of offence to be 08:00 p.m., as such the prosecution story falls to the ground.

12. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.6.2023. The fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

13. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained in paragraph-19 of the affidavit. In support of this submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgment of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

15. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, has observed as under:-

"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

17. Let the applicant- Genu @ Dushyant Pratap @ Dushyant Pratap Singh involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.

(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

18. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

19. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

Order Date :- 1.5.2024

Vikas

(Justice Krishan Pahal)