Kunwarpal v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50675 of 2023 Applicant :- Kunwarpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Kumar Pandey,Ram Prasad Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma,Ram Babu Sharma Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the informant and Sri V.P.Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶2The 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. 162 of 2023, under Sections 504, 506, 307 IPC, Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Hapur, during the pendency of trial.

¶3Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the allegations in the first information report, the applicant along with co-accused Munendra is alleged to have caused fire arm injury on the leg of Shivam. As per the medical report of injured Shivam, he received injury on his right leg. Subsequently, in the statement of injured, the applicant was nominated as the offender, who caused gun shot injury. It is contended that the said statement is an after thought, even otherwise the injury is on non vital part of the body. The nature of the said injury shows that the applicant did not have any intent to kill the injured. The applicant is in jail since 08.07.2023 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶5Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the injury sustained by Shivam is on non vital part of the body. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence that the applicant had intent to kill the injured. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than five 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.

¶6Let the applicant Kunwarpal 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.

¶7In 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 :- 12.12.2023 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad