Allowed

Virendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Oct 2020BAIL/15594/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held: Bail granted to applicant Virendra Singh in a murder conspiracy case involving property dispute. Granted on personal bond and sureties subject to conditions due to COVID-19 impact on courts and applicant's age. Trial to be concluded within two years of normal functioning.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding evidence tampering, trial cooperation, and court restoration timelines.

Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

Reserved on :- 07.10.2020 Delivered on :- 20.10.2020

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15594 of 2020 Applicant :- Virendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Matiur Rehman Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶5

Heard Sri N.I. Jafri and Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsels, assisted by Sri M.R. Khan and Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, counsels for the applicant; Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, counsels for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Virendra Singh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 02 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 304, 308 I.P.C., Police Station- Rampur, District- Jaunpur, during pendency of trial.

¶7

The allegations in the F.I.R. are that on 31.12.2019 when the husband of the informant namely Ram Vachan Singh, was sitting on the door of the house, the applicant along with co-accused persons namely, Jagdish Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Waseem came armed with lathi, danda and talwar and caused serious injuries to the husband of the informant with the intention of his murder. Shishu Kumar Singh tried to save him and he was also seriously injured. After abusing, the accused persons escaped. The husband of the deceased died during treatment and the other injured, Shishu Kumar Singh was treated at B.H.U., Varanasi.

¶8

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the parties are collaterals. There is property dispute between them and on the

¶9

¶10

fateful night, some verbal altercation took place between them. There was no intention to cause the death of the deceased, husband of the informant. All the accused persons have been assigned general role. There is no specific role or weapon assigned to the applicant. All the accused persons have been generally implicated. Even in the statement of the informant and the injured witness, no specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the alleged incident. The statement of two witnesses namely Arun Singh and Kailash Singh are not reliable since they were not the eyewitnesses of the incident and their statements have been recorded by the Investigating Officer only to falsely implicate the applicant and other accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that one co-accused, Waseem, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13028 of 2020 and there is parity of role of the applicant with the aforesaid co-accused. The applicant is aged about 64 years and suffering from age related ailments. He is in jail since 20.04.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶11

Learned Senior Counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application of the applicant. He has submitted that the applicant had motive of murder of the deceased since there was property dispute between them, being collaterals. After lodging of the first information report, the accused persons have managed the police and the Investigating Officer has not recorded the correct statement of the witnesses. Arun Singh was not eye-witness of the incident but he came from Mumbai on the next day of incident and went to see the deceased in hospital. The Investigating Officer has unfairly implicated the applicant for offence u/s 304 I.P.C. without considering the postmortem report of the deceased. It is a clear case of murder. The statement of the injured witness was not recorded by the Investigating Officer and only after he sent his statement in writing to the senior police officer, Section 308 I.P.C. was added. The applicant absconded and after issuance of non-bailable warrant on 14.02.2020 and proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. on 29.02.2020, he has

¶12

¶13

surrendered. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2899 of 2020 was filed by the informant before this Court praying for direction for fair investigation and it was disposed of by order dated 25.02.2020. Charge-sheet has already been submitted against the applicant on 26.03.2020. The bail application of co-accused, Jagdish Singh and Paramjeet Singh, have already been rejected by this Court. It has further been submitted that the bail application of co-accused, Waseem has been allowed because there was concealment of correct facts before the Court. The bail cancellation application for cancellation of bail of co-accused Waseem has already been filed by the informant.

¶14

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has rejoined and has submitted that co-accused, Paramjeet Singh, was granted bail by this Court initially under all the alleged sections except Section 308 I.P.C. but later his bail application for enlarging him on bail u/s 308 I.P.C. has been rejected by this Court.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

¶16

Having considered the material on record, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, age of applicant, his first implication, uncertainty about functioning of courts on account of spread of novel corona virus and its spread in jails and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶17

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶18

¶19

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶20

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶22

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored. In case the court below is functioning normally, this condition will not apply and the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court below.

¶23

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶24

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶26

However, the trial court is expected to conclude the trial against the applicant within a period of two years from the date the normal functioning of the Court is resumed, keeping in view the disturbances

¶27

¶28

caused in the functioning of the Courts on account of spread of novel coronavirus.

¶29

Order date : 20.10.2020 KS

Virendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aasif Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Bind Vs State of U.P.

Ovesh Vs State of U.P.

Rvindra Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Waseem Vs State of U.P.