Manish Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Court No. - 27 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 421 of 2023 Applicant :- Manish Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Mishra,Mohd.Gulfam Siraj,Shikhar Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Diwakar Singh learned AGA for State and perused record.

¶2This application for bail is file by the applicant for bail in case crime No.0047 of 2022 under Section 302 IPC, PS Mohanlalganj, district Lucknow.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated. He has submitted that all the witnesses are belonging to same family, therefore, their evidence cannot be relied on. He has submitted that the complainant is not the eyewitness rather, as per the FIR, he was sitting in his house and after hearing noise, he came outside and saw that the deceased was done to death by the applicant. He has submitted that the place of occurrence is different from the house where the complainant was in his room, therefore, he is not eyewitness. He has submitted that deceased was dashed by the monkeys due to which he fell down and received injuries. He has further submitted that wife of the applicant has also reiterated the same fact as has been stated by the complainant.

¶4Learned AGA has opposed the bail and has submitted that FIR was lodged promptly by the complainant and he mentioned that his son Ayansh 1 years and two months of age was sleeping in the house, the applicant took away the deceased son Ayansh and heavily pushed down him on the floor due to which he received injuries and died. Learned AGA has invited attention of this Court towards the statement of complainant under Section 161 CrPC in which the complainant has specifically stated that there is enmity between him and the applicant pertaining to property. He has submitted that the applicant is cousin brother born out of wedlock of his father. He has mentioned that his father had married two times and, there was dispute of property between the parties. Learned AGA has submitted that version of FIR, as well as statement Section 161 CrPC of the complainant are supporting the statements of witnesses Sangita Verma, Anuj Kumar and Sunil under Section 161 CrPC and are supporting the prosecution case. Learned AGA has further pointed out that deceased was one year and two months infant child who received following injuries:- "1. Contusion 12 cm x 12 cm present on top and back of head.

¶2Abraded contusion 2 cm x 1 cm present on right side forehead just above right eyebrow.

¶3Abraded contusion 6 cm x 4 cm present on front of chest, 3 cm above the right nipple.

¶4Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm present on right arm 8 cm below top of right shoulder underlying right humerus bone fractured.

¶5Multiple abraded contusion present in area of 10 cm x 6 cm at saclum. On opening ecclymos present undermath al opening above mentioned injuries.

¶6All skull bones fractured, meninges and brain lacerated subdural hematoma present all over the brain." The cause of death is the anti-mortem head injuries.

¶5Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, the argument that the deceased was one year and two months infant and heavily pushed down on the floor and received six injuries, the argument that the complainant and other witnesses have supported the prosecution case and they are the witnesses of the incident, it is a not fit case for bail.

¶6The application for bail is rejected. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within one year. without being influenced by the observations made by this Court. Order Date :- 22.11.2023 Rajneesh JR-PS) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench