Neeraj v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47858 of 2023 Applicant :- Neeraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Krishan Tripathi,Aditya Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed by counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶2Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned brief holder for the State-opposite party.

¶3The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.239 of 2023, under Sections 307, 316, 323, 506 and 504 of I.P.C., Police Station Tiwaripur, District Gorakhpur during the pendency of the trial.

¶4Counsel for the applicant contends that earlier on 25.01.2020, the applicant lodged an N.C.R. No. 003 of 2020 under Sections 323 and 504 of I.P.C., Police Station-Tiwaripur, District Gorakhpur against the father of the informant. In counterblast to the said proceedings, the instant prosecution has been instituted. It is next contended that as per the allegations in the first information report, two persons including the applicant are alleged to have assaulted the wife of the informant. As per the medical report, no external injury was seen. There is no report of the Doctor that the unborn child died due to any assault. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no. 3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since

05.08.2023, and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶5Learned brief holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶6Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that prior enmity exists between the parties. No external injury was seen on the body. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, 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-Neeraj, 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 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 :- 22.11.2023 Sachin Mishra High Court of Judicature at Allahabad