The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed multiple anticipatory bail applications in a high-profile case involving allegations of a premeditated assault in Hapur, Uttar Pradesh. Justice Vikram D. Chauhan presided over the case, which saw a midnight incident escalate from a children’s altercation to a violent encounter involving firearms, causing injuries to eleven individuals. Representing the applicants were advocates Girijesh Kumar Gupta and Shiv Shankar Pd Gupta, while Naveen Kumar Srivastava and Om Prakash Dwivedi represented the opposition and the state, respectively. The court ultimately denied anticipatory bail to the accused, underscoring the gravity of the crime and the group’s organized violence against the victims.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) filed on April 22, 2024, at Pilkhua Police Station, District Hapur. According to the report, an altercation had initially erupted between two children during a family wedding event, but tensions subsided when the dispute was settled. However, as family members returned home from the wedding, a group of thirteen named accused, allegedly wielding sticks, iron rods, and firearms, launched an assault on the victims near their residence around 1:00 a.m. The FIR specifies that accused individuals, including Tushar, Amit (also known as Dhoni), Ashish, and Rahul, fired upon the group, resulting in several grievous injuries, including gunshot wounds.
Key Legal Issues
The court analyzed several critical legal issues in its deliberation:
1. Nature of Offense and the Role of Intent: The applicants faced charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, and other sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 307, which deals with attempted murder, hinges on whether the accused intended to cause death, an aspect that was crucial in this case given the gunshot injuries sustained.
2. Joint Liability under Section 149 IPC: Section 149, addressing liability for members of an unlawful assembly, was pivotal. The court examined if the accused acted in unison with a common unlawful intent, especially given the alleged coordination and premeditated nature of the assault.
3. Application of Anticipatory Bail: Given the serious allegations, the court weighed whether anticipatory bail—a protective measure against wrongful arrest—was justifiable. Citing precedents, the court reiterated that anticipatory bail is exceptional and reserved for cases of clear false implication, which the applicants failed to demonstrate.
Court’s Findings and Observations
Justice Chauhan pointed to several findings that strongly indicated the applicants’ culpability and denied the anticipatory bail applications based on the following observations:
– Presence and Timing of the Assault: The judge noted that the incident took place in the dead of night, and the accused had been waiting near the victims’ residence armed with weapons, suggesting intent and premeditation. “Under ordinary circumstances, persons are expected to be in their homes; no explanation has been offered on behalf of the applicants as to why they were near the informant’s house at midnight,” stated the court.
– Use of Firearms and Violent Weapons: The court highlighted the evidence showing that the accused were armed with firearms and other dangerous weapons, pointing to an “intention to commit culpable homicide.” The court observed, “The carrying of firearms by the accused persons and the resulting gunshot injuries to victims clearly reflects a malicious intent to inflict harm.
– Legal Precedent and Need for Justice: Citing the Supreme Court decision in Sabita Paul v. State of West Bengal, Justice Chauhan emphasized that while anticipatory bail is intended to protect individuals from wrongful detention, it must be balanced against the gravity of the offense and public interest. The court affirmed, “A person who has violated the law and has not shown exceptional circumstances is not entitled to the benefit of extraordinary jurisdiction.”
The court ultimately dismissed the anticipatory bail applications, underscoring the seriousness of the applicants’ actions, the nature of injuries inflicted, and the public order implications. Justice Chauhan concluded that “granting anticipatory bail in this case would undermine justice for the victims,” and reiterated that the accused did not demonstrate any grounds for unjustified arrest or detention.
