Mahesh Prajapati v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36996 of 2023 Applicant :- Mahesh Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jaiprakash Narain Raj Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Rejoinder affidavits to the counter affidavits filed by the State and the informant, are taken on record.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jaiprakash Narain Raj, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶3The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 379 of 2023, under Sections 147, 341, 323, 336, 427, 352, 504, 308 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Sahjanwan, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶4Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the allegations in the first information report, seven persons including the applicant are alleged to have assaulted four persons. The injury sustained by the three injured are on non vital part of the body. The other injured Akhilesh Raj has received fracture on left parietal bone. It is contended that author of the said injury is not known. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender, who caused the injury on the head of injured Akhilesh Raj. Even the injured Akhilesh Raj, has not nominated the applicant as the principal offender, who caused the said injury. The applicant is in jail since

25.07.2023 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶5Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶6Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender, who caused the head injury to Akhilesh Raj. At this stage there is no clarity with regard to the role of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained confined for almost four months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶7Let the applicant Mahesh Prajapati, involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶8In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 16.11.2023 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad