Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar Dixit vs State Of U.P. on 26 November, 2019
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 11 Case :- BAIL No. - 11286 of 2019 Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dixit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amitabh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.375 of 2019, under Section 147, 148, 307, 323, 326, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sareni, District Raebareli, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and in jail since 07.08.2019. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that informant and co-accused persons belong to the same family tree and he further submitted that due to some sudden provocation, the incident was taken place, as a result, the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant with the general allegations against the co-accused persons and claiming herself to be an eye witness of the alleged incident.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which no specific role was assigned to any person, thereafter, the statement of Prashant Mishra and Prahlad Mishra under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded by the Investigating Officer, in which they stated that the applicant was assigned iron rod, Moni and Vibha were asigned lathi and danda.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that all the injuries are of simple nature as Prahlad Mishra received one lacerated wound in parietal region but it is not mentioned in his statement that who caused this injury.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant is a relative of the informant as well as co-accused persons and he only tried to mediate between them, as a result, he was implicated in the case. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that the co-accused persons caused injury to the informant side and he further submitted that the finger of Prahlad Mishra and Prashant Mishra are chopped due to assault of the co-accused persons but he conceded the fact that the applicant and two other accused persons were assigned iron rod, lathi & danda but no specific allegation has been levelled by the injured against the applicant.
Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record as well as totality of fact and circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant Sanjay Kumar Dixit be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(1) Applicant will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.
(2) Applicant will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.
(3) Applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 S. Shivhare