In this bail application, the court refused to release the applicant despite arguments referencing a co-accused's bail. The main accused was denied bail, and the trial was directed to commence within eight months.
The prayer for bail is refused and the bail application is rejected. The trial court directed to conclude trial within eight months.
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. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27802 of 2017
Applicant :- Jai Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singhal,Ajit Kumar,Dinesh Kumar Yadav,R.B. Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Daya Shanker Mishra,Jeet Bahadur Singh,Vikrant Neeraj
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
This bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Jai Singh who is involved in Case Crime No. 280 of 2016, under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC, P.S. Tappal, District Aligarh.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR of the alleged incident has been lodged against 6 persons including the applicant making general allegation. In FIR the role of firing has been assigned to applicant and co-accused Rinku. In the statement of injured Raj Kumar it has come that applicant and co-accused Rinku made firing due to which Harendra sustained gun shot injury and he has also sustained fire arm injury in his right shoulder. Injured Raj Kumar has also made general allegation against the applicant and co-accused Rinku for firing. It has further been submitted that the case of applicant is identical to the case of co-accused Rinku who had already been enlarged on bail by another bench of this court vide order dated 24.3.2017 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8668 of 2017, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 15 of the rejoinder affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 31.8.2016.
Per contra; learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in the statement of informant Badan Singh it has come that the applicant fired upon the deceased due to which he sustained gun shot injury in his chest and co-accused Rinku fired upon the injured Raj Kumar. In postmortem report only one gun shot injury has been found to the deceased. The main role of causing injury to the deceased with fire arm has been assigned to applicant. As per statement of informant Badan Singh the co-accused Rinku had caused injury to the injured Raj Kumar, therefore, the case of applicant is distinguishable from the case
of co-accused Rinku. The applicant is main accused who had fired upon the deceased due to which he died, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Consequently, the prayer for bail of the applicant is refused and the bail application of the applicant Jai Singh is hereby rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of 8 months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Masarrat
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant entitled to bail despite being a main accused who allegedly caused fatal injuries.
Whether co-accused bail grants make the applicant's position identical for bail purposes.
Jai Singh
Bachchoo Lal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
