Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1822 (ALL)

Praveen v. State of U. P.

2014-06-05

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Submission has been made on behalf of the applicant that the injury caused to the injured Pankaj Kumar Sharma does not have any connection with the instrument of assault allegedly possessed by the applicant. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant as to what type of assault was caused to him when the injured was beaten up. He further submits that in this case the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. elaborates and supports his version that the injured was given joint assault by Anuj and Praveen and it is not specified as to who caused which injury. Therefore, in the absence of any specific role and any specific injury being caused by the applicant, therefore, in view of the absence of above specific role being assigned to the applicant the injury report and specially the report of x-ray skull in the form of fracture in the parietal bone does not carry any weight and is not an impediment for grant of bail to the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 31.1.2014. The applicant does not bear any criminal antecedents. 3. The learned counsel for the complainant retorted by submitting that the injury report of injured Pankaj Kumar Sharma reveals that injured was given heavy blow to which he sustained three injuries out of which injury no.1 is lacerated wound, injury no.2 is multiple incised wound and injury no.3 is incised wound. x-ray of skull was advised to the injured whereupon a report has been submitted, which is annexed with the bail application at page No.15, which discloses fracture of left parietal bone with depressed fragments with extent of depression upto 5.5 mm with underlying non-nemorrhagic brain contusion. The injury nos. 2 and 3 must have been caused by some sharp edged weapon which the applicant was bearing at the time of the incident. 4. The injury nos. 2 and 3 must have been caused by some sharp edged weapon which the applicant was bearing at the time of the incident. 4. Considered the above submissions and also considered the gravity of the matter and nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction, looking to the prima facie case, it is observed that the nature of the injury caused to the injured is fracture of left parietal bone with depressed fragments with extent of depression upto 5.5 mm, in view of the above, it is obvious that at least a joint assault was caused to the injured due to which he suffered and sustained parietal bone fracture on his head. 5. Without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I do not find it a fit case, therefore, the bail application of the applicant, Praveen, in Cae Crime No. 52/2014 under Sections 452, 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur is rejected.