Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33806 of 2023 Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Maurya,Pulak Ganguly Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Kumar Kushwaha Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶1Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Vinod Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegations in the first information report general role of assault has been assigned to the nominated accused persons including the applicant. As a result of the same, four persons are alleged to have been injured. The injuries are caused by hard and blunt object and no dangerous weapon has been used. 3A. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to the injury sustained by injured Bhagwati Prasad in which he has suffered four injuries, out of which, three injuries are lacerated wound. The CT Scan of Bhagwati Prasad is at page 49 which is normal and no abnormality has been detected. Injured Pramod Maurya has suffered four injuries out of which three are contusion and one is lacerated wound. The X-ray of the aforesaid injured is at page 48 of the paper book in which undisplaced fracture lateral wall orbit right side has been found. The other two injured have suffered simple injuries. 3B. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the dispute has arisen when the panchayat was being held where both the parties have sustained injuries. The applicant's side has also lodged a first information report against the informant and his family members. Both the sides are relatives and the dispute is with regard to one passage between the house of the applicant and the informant. The injuries sustained by the injured are not dangerous to life and in this respect, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of the Doctor, which is at page 33 of the rejoinder affidavit in which no indication with regard to the fact that the injuries sustained by the injured are life threatening has been made. The dispute has arisen at the spur of the moment. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 20.6.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶4Sri Vinod Kumar Kushwaha, informant in person has appeared and opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that four persons have injured in the aforesaid incident. However, he does not dispute the fact that the applicant and informant are relative and the dispute is with regard to a property. He also does not dispute the fact that although the injuries have been sustained but the Doctor has not opined that the injuries are life threatening. 4A. The informant in person further submits that the applicant and his family members are threatening the informant and his family members and are pressuring him to withdraw the present case. 4B. On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the informant whether any application before the court concerned has been preferred, the informant in person fairly states that the complaint has been made to the police authorities and no application has been preferred before the court concerned.

¶5Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case. 5A. Learned AGA has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶6It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶7The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC

¶51Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the Applicant.

¶8No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶9It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶10Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State. 10A. In the present case, it is to be seen that in the present case both the parties are related to each other and the dispute is a property dispute. The panchayat was being held for resolving the dispute where both the sides alleged to have injured. The injuries sustained by the injured are caused by hard and blunt object. The injury of Pramod Maruya has not been stated to be life threatening and no dangerous weapon has been used. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶11Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12Let the applicant Dinesh Kumar involved in Case Crime No.490 of 2021, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Nawabganj, District Prayagraj be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- 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 will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. v. 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. vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. vii. In the event, the applicant changes his residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. viii. It is provided that the applicant and the informant shall maintain peace and tranquility and the Station House Officer concerned is directed to maintain peace and tranquility between the parties.

¶13In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶14The informant is hereby given liberty to apply before the court concerned for protection under the Witness Protection Scheme and in case any such application is filed, the same shall be decided expeditiously.

¶15It is further directed that since the dispute is between the relatives, it would be in the interest of justice that the trial proceedings in the present case be proceeded with expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the party and the same shall preferably be concluded within one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 26.10.2023 Bhaskar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad