Allahabad High Court
Vishnu Prasad Pandey vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 23 March, 2021
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 276 of 2021 Applicant :- Vishnu Prasad Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Pandey,Krishna Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record.
2. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-applicant for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime/F.I.R. No.0407 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC lodged at Police Station Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh.
As per allegations in the FIR, the accused-applicant and co-accused fired at the complainant's side; the injury report of two victims have been placed on record; one person from the complainant's side received firearm injuries, whereas other person received injuries by hard and blunt object;
3. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that in fact the complainant's side had killed the brother of the accused and, they have lodged the false FIR as a counterblast. The learned counsel further submits that looking at the injuries, it is evident that no firearm injury was caused to any of the two victims.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant, Mr. A.P. Mishra, submits that the injury report in respect of Anand Tiwari reflects that the injuries were caused by firearm, but the accused-applicant has mentioned that the injuries have been caused by hard and blunt object; both the injured were referred to Swarooprani Medical Hospital, Prayagraj; they had received firearm injuries. The learned counsel further submits that weapon of offence is yet to be recovered.
5. As it comes out, both the parties have fired upon each other and, in the firing one person died form the side of the accused and, two persons from complainant's side received injuries.
6. Considering the allegations in the FIR and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court does not find find it a fit case to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail inasmuch as it requires the recovery of weapon of assault, if any.
7. In view thereof, this anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected. However, it is provided that if the accused-applicant surrenders and applies for regular bail before the trial Court within ten days from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law.
For a period of ten days from today, no coercive measures to be taken against the accused-applicant pursuant to the said FIR.
Order Date :- 23.3.2021 MVS/-