Kishan Benvanshi v. State Of U.P.

Court No. - 54 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 681 of

2018

Applicant :- Kishan Benvanshi

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Abhineet Jaiswal,Ashutosh Kumar Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

This is an application for bail on behalf of Kishan Benvanshi who is in jail in connection with Case Crime No. 698 of 2017 under Section 326A IPC, P.S. Nevadiya, District Jaunpur.

Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.C. Patel who has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant as also Sri V.K. Sharma, learned AGA for the State.

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not nominated in the first information report which is against unknown offenders though lodged by the brother of Ajit Kumar, one of the two victims, is not an eye witness. He further submits that the first information report against the unknown offenders has been lodged on information received from the victims and it does not nominate anyone. He further submits that the complicity of the applicant has figured in the statements of the two victims, particularly the wife Shanti Devi who has said that initially she saw the accused-applicant lurking near the shop, where the husband and wife-the victims were asleep and later on at 2:30 in the night there was an assault throwing acid on her person and that of her husband along with chilly powder. She saw the offender running away whom she says is the 'applicant' by her assessment of the applicant's gait and the manner that he walked. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that per identification by Shanti Devi, the victim, the applicant is not the persons she saw clearly but is one based on assessment going by his gait and movement. Learned counsel for the submits that there is a strong motive to falsely implicate as the applicant has a social profile in the village where he is the solitary member of a particular caste.

Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed Neutral Citation No. - 2018:AHC:7017

1

the plea for bail saying that there is an antecedent quarrel with the son of the victims over purchase of certain grocery on credit. It is the applicant's son who had declined and this is the motive why the applicant has made this assault. He says that the victim fuelled by this motive carried out an attack of the kind which he did and the second applicant identified him in the manner that she has done.

Learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out that the medico-legal report from the district hospital shows it be corrosive burn injuries superficial to deep 9% and, therefore, it supports the case of assault by throwing acid. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the injury noted in the medico legal report is not an actual assessment made by the doctor but a record made in the column "history and alleged cause of injury" which is reported to the doctor on admission to the hospital. There is no further positive medical report certifying it to be an acid burn injury, and, in any case, it is the submission of learned counsel that the applicant cannot be connected to the crime because the material evidence that has been collected from the spot being containers carrying acid and chilly powder have not been recovered from him or at his instance or in a manner that may connect the recovery to him. Therefore, the assault cannot be connected to the applicant.

Considering the overall circumstances, the nature of allegations, evidence on record and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.

Let the applicant Kishan Benvanshi involved in Case Crime No. 698 of 2017 under Section 326A IPC, P.S. Nevadiya, District Jaunpur be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial

2

court.

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

Order Date :- 8.1.2018 Deepak

3