Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36179 of 2018 Applicant :- Himanshu Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Shukla,Devendra Kumar Dwivedi,Virender Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the complainant, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Asutosh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vinay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 229 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336 and 506 of IPC, P.S. Handia , District Allahabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
The contention as raised at the bar by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity of complainant; that the injured has not sustained any serious injury; that in the statement of injured Vageesh Mishra he has inter alia stated that he has sustained injury on his head caused by bricks; that in the statement of witness Dilip Mishra, examined during investigation, he has stated that the injured was hit by chopper at his neck while no serious injury was shown on his neck; that the medical report has been prepared by the private doctor; that the applicant is a student; that co-accused Rama Shanker Shukla, Sri Krishna Shukla, Rama Kant Shukla and Kripa Shankar Shukla have already been granted bail by the court below; that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of the co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity; that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial and that he is languishing in jail since 12.08.2018, having no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have seriously opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the injured has sustained serious injuries on his head and the main role of causing injury has been assigned to the applicant. It was argued that due to serious injuries, the injured was referred to S.G.P.G.I and from the injury report of injured it is apparent that he has sustained serious injuries and that his treatment is still going on. It was further submitted that even after the incident the injured has been threatened by the accused persons.
Keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the parties, period of detention of the applicant and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that identically placed co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by the court below, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.
Let the applicant Himanshu Shukla involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant 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 the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or temper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it would be open to the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 A. Tripathi