Allahabad High Court
Rajesh vs State Of U.P. on 3 January, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:1309
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49749 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajesh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mukti Nath Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhinab Mishra,G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. and supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant are taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Mukti Nath Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Abhinab Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.184 of 2023, under Sections 436, 304 and 324 IPC, Police Station Jaitipur, District Shahjahanpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The grand-son of the informant had gone to purchase toffee from the kiosk of one Ashok s/o Morpal on 02.06.2023, whereby the applicant is stated to have entered into an altercation with him and had set his kiosk afire, whereby the grand-son of the informant sustained burn injuries in it and was admitted at C.H.C., Jaitipur, from where he was referred to District Hospital, Shahjahanpur.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
6. The FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
7. The prosecution story stands falsified from the statement of PW-1, who happens to be the informant, as she has categorically stated that the applicant and the owner of the shop Ashok had an altercation and it was the Ashok who had tried to set the applicant afire and in the said incident, accidentally, her grand-son caught fire.
8. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained as the said matter is petty one falling under Section 60 of Excise Act. He is in jail since 13.06.2023 and is ready to cooperate with trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
9. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the delay stands explained from the fact that the informant rushed her grand-son to C.H.C., from where he was referred to District Hospital, Shahjahanpur and it was her utmost duty to first save the life of her grand-son somehow, who could not be saved and succumbed to the injuries sustained.
10. There is statement of the deceased person Ashish, grand-son of the informant, who has categorically stated that it was the applicant who had set afire the said kiosk, in which he also sustained burn injuries. The said statement tentamounts to dying declaration as the said six year old child had succumbed to the injuries sustained. The criminal history of the applicant has also not been properly explained.
CONCLUSION:
11. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the statement of the deceased which tentamounts to dying declaration, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
12. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
13. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex 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.
14. 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 :- 3.1.2025
Ravi/-
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
