Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Pawan Kumar Verma - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. - Opposite Party
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47278 of 2021
Decided On : 31-08-2022
BAIL - Criminal Law - Section 307, 436, 325, I.P.C., Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act - [307, 436, 325, 7] - The court discussed the injuries suffered by the accused and the injured persons, the alleged weapons used, and the lack of evidence supporting the prosecution's case. The court emphasized the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and considered the accused's claim of ownership to the property in question and ongoing civil litigation. The court allowed the bail application, highlighting the absence of evidence implicating the accused and the incomplete and incorrect facts presented by witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought bail in a case involving allegations of assault and property dispute. The injured parties alleged that the applicant and his son assaulted them with sharp-edged weapons and attempted to set their house on fire. The applicant claimed innocence, citing possession of the property and lack of motive.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injuries suffered by the accused and the injured parties, the alleged weapons used, and the lack of evidence supporting the prosecution's case indicated that the witnesses had not presented complete and correct facts. The court emphasized the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and considered the accused's claim of ownership to the property in question and ongoing civil litigation.
Issues: The issues involved the nature of injuries, alleged weapons used, ownership of the property, and the reliability of witness statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and considered the accused's claim of ownership to the property in question and ongoing civil litigation. The court allowed the bail application, highlighting the absence of evidence implicating the accused and the incomplete and incorrect facts presented by witnesses.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the applicant, emphasizing the absence of evidence implicating the accused and the incomplete and incorrect facts presented by witnesses.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shishir Tandon Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava Advocate, the learned AGA for the State, Sri Rajeev Sawhney Advocate, the learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking his release on bail in Case Crime No.41 of 2021, under Sections 307, 436, 325, I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Pheel Khana, District Kanpur Nagar.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the informant Ashish Kumar Jain on 21.07.2021 at 14.44 hours against the applicant Pawan Kumar Verma and his son Anand Verma, alleging that both the accused persons had assaulted the informant's nephews Tarun Jain and Rahul Jain on the same day at 10.30 a.m. with sharp edged weapons with intention to kill them and the accused persons also tried to put their house on fire. The FIR further states that the nephews of the informant were admitted to a hospital by the police.
4. The injury report of Tarun Jain annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the bail application mentions six incised wounds and an abrasion. Five injuries were kept under observation and the injured was referred for C.T. Examination. Injury no.4 was found to have been caused with a hard & blunt object, whereas the other injuries were reported to have been caused by a sharp object. Injury no.6 was an incised would of size 0.3 X 0.3 X 1.0 C.M. in the chest cavity.
5. The injury report of Rahul Jain mentions a lacerated wound on left side of his forehead, a contused swelling, three incised wounds and an abrasion and the doctor has opined that injuries nos.1, 3, 4, & 5 were caused by some sharp object and the injuries nos.2 & 6 were simple in nature, caused by some hard and blunt object.
6. Supplementary medical examination report of the injured Tarun Jain issued by Madhuraj Hospital on 21.07.2021 mentions that he had undergone a surgical operation on 17.07.2021 and the doctor reported that injuries nos.1 & 2 were dangerous to life.
7. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application it has been stated that the applicant's son Anand Verma, who is the co-accused in the present case, has purchased a property from a relative of the informant; that Rahul Jain and Tarun Jain have filed Suit No.639 of 2016, in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar for seeking a declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of the co-accused is null and void and they also sought a perpetual injunction. It has further stated in the affidavit that a reply has been filed in the aforesaid suit and the trial court has rejected the application for temporary injunction by means of an order dated 28.07.2021; that the aforesaid order dated 28.07.2021 was challenged before this Court by filing F.A.F.O. No. 3321 of 2021 and on 18.05.2018 this Court has passed an order admitting the appeal and directing the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to the suit property.
8. It has further been stated in the affidavit that the applicant was in possession of the property in question and being aggrieved against this, Tarun Jain and Rahul Jain and some other co-accused persons had attacked the applicant's son Anand Verma on 21.07.2021 at 9.30 a.m. when he was cleaning his shop; that hearing his hue and cry the applicant reached their and tried to save him upon which Tarun Jain and Rahul Jain and some other persons caused injuries to the applicant and his son Anand Verma; that the injuries of the applicant and his son were examined in the KPM Hospital, Kanpur Nagar on 21.07.2021 itself.
9. The injury report of the applicant's son Anand Verma states that he was examined on 21.07.2021 at 12.25 P.M. and multiple abrasions in an area of 13 cm. X 6 cm. on the left side of his chest; multiple abrasion in an area of 18 cm. X 10 cm. on the right side of the
The main legal point established is that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that an accused person must have freedom to establish innocence. The court also highlighted the principle that....
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted only in exceptional cases where false implication or extraordinary circumstances are demonstrated; involvement in an unlawful assembly with inten....
Bail should ensure the accused's attendance at trial, not serve as punitive action, highlighting the principle of presumption of innocence.
The court established that for a charge under Section 307 IPC to be sustained, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not present in this case due to the nature of injuries and the....
The heinousness of the offense, evidence available on record, and the accused-applicants' criminal history were central to the court's decision in rejecting the bail applications.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
