Allahabad High Court
Nagendra vs State Of U.P. on 17 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:89405
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19291 of 2024
Applicant :- Nagendra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilendra Yadav,Sudhanshu Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Second supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Akhilendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Tufail Hasan, learned counsel for the informant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.44 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 323, 307 I.P.C., Police Station- Fariha, District- Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.
5. As per prosecution case, a dispute arose between the parties at the time of dancing at DJ in a marriage procession on 3.3.2024. Peeved by the said act, the applicant and other accused persons are stated to have come to the house of informant on 12.3.2024 at about 03:30 p.m., whereby the co-accused person Saurabh is stated to have caused firearm injury to Ram Lakhan @ Lucky, son of the informant. The applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have assaulted the wife of the informant causing injuries to her.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are general allegations against all the accused persons except co-accused person Saurabh, who has been assigned the role of firing at the son of the informant Ram Lakhan @ Lucky. It is further stated that the case of the applicant and other co-accused persons are at different footing to co-accused person Saurabh.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained as the case under Section 25 of Arms Act has been foisted on him at the time of arrest and he has yet to apply for bail in it. 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.
8. 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 15.3.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
9. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
10. The case of the applicant and other co-accused persons stands distinguished to co-accused person Saurabh.
11. 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.
12. Let the applicant- Nagendra, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.
13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
14. 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 :- 17.5.2024/ Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
