Allahabad High Court
Vimlesh Kumar Mishra vs State Of U.P. on 24 March, 2021
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 15 Case :- BAIL No. - 207 of 2021 Applicant :- Vimlesh Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Bajpai,Prashant Singh Atal,Uma Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amar Singh Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant as well as perused the record.
Rejoinder Affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the First Information Report has been lodged by the informant against eleven named persons. While filing the charge-sheet names of co-accused Sanjay Kumar, Brajesh Kumar, Praveen Kumar, Sachin and Divyank @ Shubham have been dropped.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the co-accused namely, Vijay Kumar, Pradeep, Akhilesh and Ketki Devi have been enlarged on bail.
As per the prosecution version in the First Information Report, the applicant and the co-accused have thrown the daughter of the informant on the floor and the remaining nine accused persons were firing. The informant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has repeated the same version as stated in the First Information Report. While giving re-statement the informant has introduced two eye witnesses namely, Hari Prasad Mishra and Devi Deen Mishra. They have assigned general role of assault to all the accused persons and said that nobody come with the gun and no fire was made. More or less the statement has been given by Devi Deen Mishra, who has assigned similar role to all the accused persons. Eye witnesses namely Chandrakesh Saroj and Varun Singh in their statements have also assigned general role. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in fact no cartridge has been recovered from the spot.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that cause of death could not be ascertained in the postmortem report and the deceased has received five simple injuries on the person. Medical Board constituted for the purpose, opined that cause of death is smothering.
Learned counsel for the applicant invited attention of the court towards the postmortem report where trachea hyoid bone has been found intact and, thus, the allegation made by the informant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the deceased has been done to death by throttling is not corroborated by the postmortem report.
Learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of the applicant in two cases in which he has been acquitted by the trial court. The applicant is in jail since 11.4.2020.
It is lastly submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant, Vimlesh Kumar Mishra involved in Case Crime No.124 of 2020 under Sections 147, 149, 323, 302 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Baghrai, District Pratapgarh, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(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 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
Order Date :- 24.3.2021 Madhu