Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55900 of 2019 Applicant :- Hriday Narayan Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Kumar Vikrant,Ravikant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Surendra Tiwari alongwith Shri Prabha Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, upon appearance filed today as well as Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Hriday Narayan Shukla with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 236 of 2017, under Section 147, 323, 427, 325, 308 IPC, Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Allahabad during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) the applicant is accused of offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide, causing grievous hurt etc., punishable with imprisonment that may extend upto seven years;
(ii) against FIR lodged on 12.04.2017, the applicant is in confinement since 27.11.2019;
(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation;
(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;
(v) chargesheet has been submitted;
(vi) as to prima facie case, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a government employee, who has been falsely implicated, owing to pre- existing dispute between him and the victim. Then, it has been submitted that though the allegation of assault has been made against 10 to 12 unknown persons alongwith the present applicant, no specific role has been assigned as to the fracture injuries. It has been suggested that the injuries are exaggerated and there was no threat to life of the victim. Further, it has been submitted that the applicant had been granted bail during investigation and he had fully participated therein. Reference has also been made to the fact that the applicant has not been found to have assaulted the victim in the recording of the CCTV camera. Thus, it has been submitted that the applicant is entitled to bail at this stage;
(vii) the bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant. They submit that specific allegations have been made against the applicant and his accomplice of having brutally assaulted the victim just outside the office premises. In that regard, it has been pointed out that the FIR itself was lodged by a senior officer, namely the Deputy Secretary, Madhyamk Shiksha Board. Referring to injuries, it has been submitted that the victim suffered serious injuries which may have resulted in loss of life. In any case, the doctor had described the injuries to be grievous and life threatening. As to the role of the present applicant, reference has also been made to the statement of the victim, who has specifically named the applicant. Besides above, learned counsel for the informant referred to the fact that the investigation had been interfered with at the behest of the applicant and, therefore, in the initial chargesheet, Sections 308 and 325 IPC had been mentioned only on the foot of the chargesheet and not in the initial part of the chargesheet, which has resulted in some delay, inasmuch as the Court did not summon the applicant for those offences, initially. Further, it has been submitted that the applicant had avoided arrest and has only recently surrendered. In that regard, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant had no occasion to surrender for offences under Sections 325 and 308 IPC, inasmuch as he was not summoned under those provisions. Upon being summoned, he had challenged the same before this Court;
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, including copy of the case diary which has been produced, though, it may be true that the chargesheet did not prominently mention Sections 325 and 308 IPC, however, it is also a fact that the learned court below did not summon the applicant under those provisions for a long period of time. That apart, allegations have been made against the government servant of having assaulted another government servant and that the FIR has been lodged by a senior government officer of the rank of Deputy Secretary. Perusal of the FIR brings out specific allegation of assault of having been carried out by the applicant and his accomplice. The chargesheet material, including the statement of the victim is quite specific in that regard. Further, looking at the nature of assault alleged and injuries suffered, it appears to be not a fit case for grant of bail at this stage.
5. The bail application is accordingly rejected.
6. At the same time, liberty of the applicant cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period of time. Thus, it is provided that the trial court shall make all efforts to ensure that the stage of committal and framing of charges is concluded, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from today.
Order Date :- 16.12.2019 AHA