In this bail application, the applicant alleged false implication in a murder case. The Single Judge heard counsel for parties and the first informant, considered the severity of the offence and the applicant's criminal antecedents, and found it was not a fit case for bail.
Bail application of the applicant Pawan Singh @ Chintoo is rejected.
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. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3412 of 2020
Applicant :- Pawan Singh @ Chintoo Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prabha Upadhyay,R P Rajan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Ranvijay Singh, Advocate on behalf of first informant, is taken on record.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicant, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.P. Rajan, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated for the murder of Vivek Singh; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect and the first informant has lodged F.I.R. with false concocted story claiming himself to be eye witness of occurrence; that in F.I.R. no specific role of firing has been assigned to applicant, rather collective role of firing has been assigned to all the accusedpersons; that during investigation, co-accused Abhishek was arrested with recovery of pistol and co-accused Himanshu Tiwari was also arrested; that in their confessional statements before police, co-accused persons have stated that during the incident, fires were made on deceased by Abhishek, Shubham and Sunil and fire made by Abhishek was missed, while fires made by Shubham and Sunil hit deceased; that on their arrest, Subham and Sunil also made similar statements; that in statements of Abhishek and Akhilesh, respectively brother and uncle of deceased also, role of firing has been assigned to Shubham, Sunil and Abhishek and alleged eye witness Pankaj has not even named applicant; that the incident is alleged to have taken place on account of dispute between student leaders and the applicant was not even studying in the same college, rather has been falsely implicated being the resident of same village; that applicant has explained his criminal history in para 21 of the affidavit given in support of bail application stating that he has been granted bail in all 09 cases including case under Gangster Act; that the case of applicant is distinguishable
from main shooters Abhishek, Shubham and Sunil; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 19.4.2019.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that all the accused-persons have been given active and collective role of indiscriminate firing in causing death of Vivek Singh; that applicant has actively participated in the incident of brutal murder of Vivek Singh by indiscriminate firing and postmortem report states of sustaining of multiple anti mortem injuries including 08 fire arm wounds of entry which were cause of his death; that it is wrong to say that applicant has been falsely implicated; that the bail application of co-accused Atul Kumar Pandey has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 7.6.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.22642 of 2019, copy of which has been produced for perusal and taken on record; that applicant is a person of criminal antecedent, on whom case under Gangster Act is pending; that applicant is great student leader and if released on bail shall misuse liberty of bail and delay and defraud the fair disposal of trial.
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 Pawan Singh @ Chintoo in Case Crime No.100 of 2019 under sections ,147, 148, 149, 120-B, 302,34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Shivpur, District Varanasi, is rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 3.2.2020 Tamang
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the bail application of the applicant accused in a murder and rioting case should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pawan Singh @ Chintoo
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
