Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3208 (ALL)

Rajendra & Another v. State of U. P.

2010-10-19

NAHEED ARA MOONIS

body2010
Naheed Ara Moonis, J.:- Heard Shri B. K. Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicants, Shri S. K. Chaubey and Shri B. K. Dwivedi, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of complainant, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicants, Rajendra and Chandan in case crime no.238 of 2009, under Section 143, 323, 452, 308, 506 IPC, P.S. Raunapar, District Azamgarh, with a prayer that he may be admitted to bail. 3. According to the FIR the applicants along with other accused persons are said to have assaulted the complainant and his brother, on account of which the complainant's brother had sustained serious injuries. In that incident the son of the complainant was also brutally assaulted with lathi-danda. It is also alleged in the FIR that the complainant's brother was also being dragged into the house and was assaulted with bricks, thereafter the accused persons escaped from the spot. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants, that general role has been assigned to the applicants for causing injuries with lathi-danda. It is not ascertainable who has caused fatal blow causing injury to the injured on parietal bone. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that there is inconsistency in the statement of the injured with the prosecution case, which creates doubt about the complicity of the applicants. The other three persons who have been assigned the similar role have already been enlarged on bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that injuries have been caused by the applicants and other accused persons. The injured Jai Singh had sustained injuries over his head which is dangerous to life and C.T. Scan was also done. Therefore, there is active participation of the applicants in the commission of aforesaid offence. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will try to misuse the liberty of bail. 7. It is further contended by the leaned counsel for the complainant that, on account of non appearance of the applicants the trial has not yet been concluded, therefore, the trial may be expedited. 8. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will try to misuse the liberty of bail. 7. It is further contended by the leaned counsel for the complainant that, on account of non appearance of the applicants the trial has not yet been concluded, therefore, the trial may be expedited. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit along with the entire order sheet indicating that the prosecution witnesses have not appeared on the date fixed for recording evidence after framing of the charge. The applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. In case, they are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicants are in jail since 20.6.2009. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion about the merits of the case, let the applicants, Rajendra and Chandan involved in case crime no.238 of 2009, under Section 143, 323, 452, 308, 506 IPC, P.S. Raunapar, District Azamgarh, be enlarged on bail, on their executing a personal bond each and furnishing two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (i)The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii)The applicants will not pressurise/intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii)The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 10. In defiance of the above conditions, the prosecution would be at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail. 11. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months.