The Court allowed the third bail application citing parity with co-accused already granted bail. Bail granted on personal bond with two sureties despite two prior rejections, directing speedy trial per Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Application allowed; applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties. Directs speedy trial under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
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.
1
Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3875 of 2019
Applicant :- Ajay Singh @ Chumman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Trivedi,Vibhu Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Daga
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA for the State and Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the complainant.
Applicant has moved the present third bail application seeking bail in ST No.572 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.115 of 2016 u/s 302 IPC PS George Town District Allahabad. The first and second bail applications were rejected by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 29.11.2017 and 14.5.2018 respectively.
Today when the case has been taken up, the Court has been informed that Vipin Singh, one of the accused having a similar role, has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court on 29.11.2017 and other co-accused Deepu Patel alias Saurabh has also been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.11.2017. Contention is that the role of the present applicant is absolutely identical to that of coaccused Deepu Patel alias Saurabh and Vipin Singh. With regard to claim of parity, reliance has been placed on the testimony of PW-2 Amit Tripathi, who is the first informant. PW-2 in his statement has specifically stated that fofiu iVsy] lkSjHk flag iVsy] vt; iVsy o ,d vKkr pkjksa yksx vkil esa ,d jk; dj esjs HkkbZ vfHk"ksd f=ikBh mQZ xkSjo dks bu pkjksa yksxksa us xksyh ekjh fofiu iVsy] vt; iVsy o lkSjHk iVsy xk s yh ekj jgs Fks pkSFkk O;fDr vlygk ysdj [kM+k Fkk eSa Hkh xksyh dh vkokt lqudj ns[kk esjk HkkbZ ogha fxj x;k eSa fpYykrs gq, Hkkxk vius HkkbZ dh rjQ bu yksxksa us esjs Åij xksyh pykbZ ogh cxy NksVh Vªd ds ihNs Nqi dj eSa ?kVuk ns[k jgk Fkk and thus, he contends that the applicant who is in jail since 5.5.2016
2
with no criminal history, is also entitled to a similar indulgence.
Learned AGA and Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application of the applicant with the contention that at the time when the bail applications of the present applicant were rejected, the orders granting bail to co-accused Deepu Patel alias Saurabh and Vipin Singh were already on record and thus, it has to be presumed that the co-ordinate Bench while rejecting the bail applications of the applicant was aware of the aforesaid two orders.
Nevertheless the fact remains that Amit Tripathi, who is the first informant, has been examined as PW-2 after the rejection of first and second bail applications of the applicant and he in his statement has categorically assigned the similar role to all the three accused persons, of which two have already been bail by another Bench of this Court. In this regard, relevant portion of his statement has already been quoted herein above.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Ajay Singh @ Chumman involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his 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 court.
3
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such 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 learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Order Date :- 24.7.2019 SP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant given identical role and prior co-accused bail.
Whether the order adversely affects the prosecution's case due to prima facie finding.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶24
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaReferred¶24
Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ajay Singh @ Chumman
State Of U.P.
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
