Allahabad High Court
Vakeel Adivasi vs State Of U.P. on 25 November, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:184779
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38109 of 2024
Applicant :- Vakeel Adivasi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Raghav Pandey,Ram Kishore Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pushkar Nath Tripathi,Rohit Yadav
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
2. Heard Sri Himanshu Raghav Pandey, learned counsel for applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.33 of 2024, under Sections 302, 323 and 341 I.P.C., Police Station- Khiri, District- Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed the said offence with the cultivator attached to the tractor in the night of 6.3.2024 at about 01:15 a.m., thereby, caused grievous injuries to the brother of the informant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The place of occurrence has been changed by the informant from the agricultural field to that his house. There is no criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 7.3.2024. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there are 19 injuries sustained by the injured person and they corroborate with the cultivator as they are alleged to be the cause of death of the deceased person, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the injuries as observed by the doctor conducting autopsy of the deceased person, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 25.11.2024
Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
