Judge rejected bail application of Jaivinder Sharma in a criminal case involving murder and unlawful assembly, holding that the totality of facts, severity of punishment, and active complicity made him unfit for bail without commenting on merits.
Bail application rejected; applicant to remain in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1928 of 2019
Applicant :- Jaivinder Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Two supplementary affidavits filed by learned counsel for applciant which are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated; that as per averments made in FIR dated 18.08.2018 lodged by Sanjay Kumar, co-accused Sanjeev and Amit came at the shop of his brother Vinod at about 06:00 p.m. and demanded various articles on credit and upon refusal by his Bhabhi Suman and niece Anjali, coaccused Sanjeev and Amit left with threatening and returned with other co-accused persons armed with spade, farsa etc. and committed marpeet with them resulting in multiple injuries to his father Ratan Singh, Bhabhi Suman and niece Anjali and death of Ratan Singh due to injuries; that it is also mentioned in FIR that several villagers also arrived who caught Sanjeev at the spot and handed him over to police; that in FIR no specific role has been assigned to applicant; that postmortem report of deceased states that he sustained one lacerated wound and six incised wounds as well as removal of bone of an index finger; that injury nos.3 and 4 are incised wounds on neck which appears to be cause of death; that in statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. first informant as well as injured witnesses Smt. Suman and Km. Anjali have specified the role of causing incised wounds with spade and farsa to Sanjeev and Amit, and applicant and Shubham have been assigned with the role of causing injuries with dandas while Smt. Malti Sharma and Meenu Sharma have been assigned with the role of causing injuries with kicks and fists; that in the incident in question, accused Sanjeev also sustained multiple injuries as per medical report at Anenxure 7; that co-accused Malti has been granted bail by other Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.10.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39571 of 2018 and after releasing of bail, she has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. narrating the correct facts of the incident wherein deceased under intoxication of liquor was abusing Sanjeev and Amit who had gone to his shop and during quarrel his son came with spade and attempted on life of Sanjeev with the stump of spade; that above application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved after released on bail by Malti Sharma dated 26.11.2018 is pending for disposal; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of
bail; that the applicant is in custody since 18.08.2018.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that in this broad daylight incident of 06:00 p.m. on 18.08.2018, applicant is named in promptly lodged FIR within one hour of the incident; that in the incident, apart from causing injuries by Sanjeev and Amit with spade and farsa, applicant has also actively participated by causing head injury to deceased with dandas resulting in fracture of his occipital bone; that death of deceased has been opined due to shock & hemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries, and Ratan Singh died due to cumulative effect of injuries caused to him by applicant and co-accused persons; that injuries to Sanjeev might have been sustained to him by crowd which caught him at the spot and handed him over to police; that injuries of Sanjeev are simple and superficial in nature for which he was discharged the very next day; that upon being denied articles on credit, all the accused persons formed unlawful assembly and committed the incident in pre-planned manner in furtherance of common object of such unlawful assembly in which applicant also actively participated; that a false cross version is being attempted through application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which is not acceptable; that case of applicant is distinguishable from Malti Sharma who was a lady applicant may not seek parity with her partparticularly when she has been differently assigned with the role of causing injuries with kicks and fists;
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment , as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The bail application of applicant Jaivinder Sharma in Case Crime No. 977 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Kankarkheda District Meerut, is rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 M. ARIF
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is a fit case for bail in a murder case arising out of an unlawful assembly.
Whether the active complicity in causing cumulative injuries to the deceased warrants denial of bail.
Jaivinder Sharma
State Of U.P.
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
