Dismissed

Amit Kumar Singh @ Deepu Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2018BAIL/36330/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the court considered the applicant's contention that his implication was false due to discrepancies in the First Information Report regarding a witness's presence. Rejecting these submissions, the court held that no case for bail was made out in this serious offence of murder.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant remains in custody.

Amit Kumar Singh @ Deepu Singh Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36330 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh @ Deepu Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandan Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,D.K.Singh,O.P.Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri O.P. Singh, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri D.K.Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No.251/2016 under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station Cantt, District - Varanasi with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant was not named in the First Information Report; even if the prosecution version is believed to be true then Tarkeshwar Singh, father of the deceased, who was sitting in the XUV car and who has disclosed the names of the accused persons to his brother namely Sanjay Singh, the first informant, the names of the accused persons should have been mentioned in the F.I.R. itself; the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the statement of the father of the deceased, who was shown sitting in the back seat of the car in a fainted condition and if it is true, the said fact should have also been mentioned in the F.I.R and in fact the father of the deceased was not present in the said car and the prosecution story has been planned; in fact no body had seen the incident and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and the applicant has no previous criminal history.

¶8

Sri. O. P. Singh, learned senior advocate appearing for the complainant has strongly opposed the bail application with the contention that the First Information Report was lodged by Sanjay Singh before reaching the hospital and the information about the names of the applicant or the accused persons were disclosed by the father of the deceased when Sanjay Singh reached to the hospital and there was no occasion to mention the names of the accused in the F.I.R. itself as the father of the deceased was present at the hospital; Tarkeshwar Singh is the eye witness as he was there in the XUV car at the time of the incident and after seeing the incident he fainted on the back seat of the car and on account of this reason, the names of the accused persons have not been disclosed in the First Information Report.

¶9

Subsequently, in view of the fact that the first informant was not

¶10

aware about the presence of Tarkeshwar in the XUV car because the First Information Report has been lodged prior to the time when the first informant reached to the hospital and the other brother of the deceased, namely, Ajitesh and his friend Vikas have given the complete picture to the Tarkeshwar at the hospital, will not be a ground for grant of any indulgence in favour of the applicant; there is as many as five gun shot wounds of entry in the body of the deceased; Tarkeshwar is the eye witness of the incident even otherwise son of the first informant, namely, Ajitesh has also seen the accused who were running away from the spot in the street and high mast lights.

¶11

Learned AGA appearing for the State has also strongly opposed the bail application with the contention that merely because the fact of the presence of Tarkeshwar was not mentioned in the First Information Report by itself cannot create any doubt about the story of the prosecution and there is no reason for false implication to the applicant.

¶12

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments as contained in the present bail application and also looking to the seriousness of the allegations as made in the FIR, gravity of the offence and severity of the punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.

¶13

Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.7.2018

¶15

Saurabh

Amit Kumar Singh @ Deepu Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Singh @ Deepu Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Mustafa Vs State of U.P.

Jaipal and Ors. Vs State

Vijay Pal Vs State of U.P.

Dilshad Vs State

Ahmad Noor Vs State of Up and Another

Raj Kumar Modi Vs State of U.P.