Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14561 of 2021 Applicant :- Vikram Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satendra Singh
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Matter taken up through Video Conferencing.
Heard Sri Anurag Dubey learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satendra Singh, learned counsel for first informant, Sri Virendra Kumar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Vikram seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.145 of 2020, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Onchha, District Mainpuri.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although applicant has been named in the first informant report as sole accused but his implication is false and incorrect. It is argued that the first informant Smt. Sarla Devi, who is the wife of deceased Suresh Chand is claiming herself to be an eye witness to the incident, but the same is a false assertion as she in the first information report states that the applicant after assaulting the deceased threw the knife at the place of occurrence and ran away, but the Investigating Officer got the said knife recovered after three days of the incident i.e. on 21.8.2020 from a place near the alleged place of occurrence which was wrapped in a polythene. It is argued that the first informant was not present at the place of occurrence. It is further argued that the first information report was registered under sections 307 and 504 IPC on 19.8.2020 but later on after the death of deceased on 28.8.2020, the said case was converted under section 302 IPC. It is argued that the deceased died due to septicemia and also Covid-19, which is evident from the letter dated 28.8.2020 of the Additional Medical Superintendent Covid Hospital, Uttar Pradesh Ayurvigyan Vishwavidyala, Safai, Etawah in which it has been specifically stated that the deceased after being admitted in the hospital had tested positive for Covid-19. It is argued that as such the postmortem examination of the deceased was not conducted due to modalities of a Covid patient and thus after his death the present case will not be covered under section 302 IPC, but at best it will be a case under section 304 IPC, as per first information report itself wherein the reading of the same would transpire that the said incident took place at the spur of moment in the heat of passion on sudden provocation. It is further argued that the applicant may be released on bail, as the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 21 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application and the applicant is in jail since 21.8.2020.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the sole accused named in the first information report and has been assigned the role of assaulting the deceased with a knife. It is further argued that the deceased was uncle/chacha of the applicant. It is further argued that while deceased was examined in an injured condition, four incised wounds and one sharp edged wound on his body were found and doctor had kept the injuries under observation. It is argued that unfortunately the deceased had suffered the infection of Corona in the meantime. It is further argued that the injuries received by the deceased were on vital parts of the body. It is further argued that the present case is not a case of sudden provocation, as appears from the reading of the first information report itself wherein it is mentioned that the applicant came to the house of the deceased and started abusing, to which the deceased came out and then there was some altercation took place between them after which the deceased was assaulted with a knife by the applicant. It is further argued that the presence of the first informant, who is the wife of the deceased is very natural, as the same is the house of deceased and first informant. It is further argued that the knife, which has been recovered from the place of occurrence itself, the same was not wrapped in any polythene but was covered for the time being as it appears from the recovery memo. It is argued that the applicant is sole accused involved in assaulting his uncle with a knife, as a result of which he died. It is argued that the prayer of bail be rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is a nephew of the deceased and he has been assigned the role of assaulting the deceased by a knife on his abdomen. The deceased received as many as five incised wounds which are on vital parts of the body. The deceased subsequently succumbed to the injuries received which resulted in septicemia and also due to Covid infection. There is recovery of the said weapon from the place of occurrence. Presence of first informant cannot be disbelieved because she is wife of the deceased and the first informant was living in the same house with the deceased. The conduct of the applicant of going to the house of the deceased and hurling abuse at him, clearly shows his intention to commit offence.
Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 26.5.2021 Tamang (Samit Gopal,J.)