Allowed

Sagar Rana v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2020BAIL/5901/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a bail application filed by Sagar Rana in a murder case. Noting that the applicant was not named in the FIR or witness statements and his involvement was circumstantial, the court distinguished cited precedents and granted bail with strict conditions for appearance.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties with conditions to attend court dates and not tamper with evidence.

Sagar Rana Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5901 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sagar Rana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Ratan Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been filed today which are taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Desh Ratan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Sagar Rana seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with case crime no.344 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 506, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Navabad, District Jhansi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that occurrence in the present matter is of 21.07.2018 at about 1.30 P.M. for which a first information report was lodged on the same day i.e. on 21.07.2018 at about 21.57 hours by Sanchit Verma naming nine persons therein namely Sonu Geda, Rinku Geda, Bobi Geda, Angad Gurjar, Prahlad Gurjar, Udham Gurjar, Rajendra Gurjar, Shivam Gurjar and Pushpendra Gurjar. In the present incident Gaurav Verma received injuries and died and further Sanjay Verma, Ravi Verma and Sunil Kushwaha are injured persons. In the first information report there is further reference that apart from nine named accused persons

¶9

there were three other unknown persons who had joined hands with the said nine persons.

¶10

It is thus argued that the applicant is not named in the first information report. He is even not named by three injured persons in their statements recorded during investigation. Further no other witness has named the applicant as an accused.

¶11

It is then argued that the applicant was arrested on 08.08.2018 at about 5.40 A.M. by the police of police station Tappal, District Aligarh for which a first information report was registered at 7.32 A.M. at the said police station. Subsequently the applicant on the pretext of going to the toilet at the police station itself ran away from there at 7.46 A.M. for which a first information report was lodged at 1.34 P.M. Later on the applicant was arrested at 9.30 A.M. and was shown to have been involved in a police encounter for which a first information report was lodged at 3.23 P.M. being Case Crime No.570 of 2018, under Sections 307 and 414 I.P.C., P.S. Tappal, District Aligarh.

¶12

It is further argued that the applicant after arrest gave his confessional statement on 29.10.2018 mentioning therein that he had used a motorcycle which was parked by him at the back wall of the District Jail after committing murder in the present matter. Prior to this, motorcycle was recovered by the police on 24.07.2018 which was shown to have been recovered by the police which was parked taking support of the back wall of the District Jail.

¶13

It is argued that in the case being Case Crime No.570 of 2018 the applicant has been granted bail by Sessions

¶14

Judge, Aligarh vide order dated 14.08.2019. Further not naming of the applicant in the first information report and by any of the witnesses goes to show that the applicant has been falsely implicated.

¶15

So far as the statement of the applicant regarding the use of motorcycle is concerned, it is argued that the said recovery even taken at the face value of it coupled with the statement of the applicant regarding the use of same and place of its parking makes it unsafe to be relied upon and even reliability of the said statement is questioned. It is further argued that co-accused Prahlad Gurjar has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.07.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1892 of 2019.

¶16

Per-contra learned counsel appearing for the first informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has argued that in so far as it relates to the fact that there were 2-3 unknown persons stated to have been active in the present incident, there is consistency in the version of the F.I.R. and even in the statement of the witnesses. One Rajendra Gurjar was arrested on 01.08.2018 who confessed his guilt before the police and even gave a statement that Rs.20 lac was paid to the hired persons for committing murder.

¶17

Learned counsel for the first informant further argued that the applicant is a resident of Haryana on his own showing. There is no explanation whatsoever coming forth from his side as to why he was present at the place of occurrence. Gaurav alias Monti an accused in the matter, who was in jail on that point of time, had got the deal finalized for the present murder in which the

¶18

applicant actively participated.

¶19

It is further stated that there was a CCTV recording taken by the Investigating Officer from a camera installed at a shop named Vinay Traders in which from 13.00 hours to 14.00 hours it was seen that on a motorcycle two persons were going. Photographs of two persons were taken out from the CCTV footage and the Investigating Officer identified the said persons as that being the present applicant and Rohit alias Rohtas.

¶20

Learned counsel for the first informant relied upon following judgments:-

¶21

1. 1998 SCC (Cri) 257 State of Maharashtra vs. Ramesh Daurani (paras 4 and 5)

¶22

2. 2017 (7) SCC 177 Charandas Swami vs. State of Gujrat and another (para 60)

¶23

3. 2019 CRL LJ. 2609, National Investigation Agency vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (paras 19, 20 & 35)

¶24

It is argued on the strength of the said three judgements that statement of the applicant is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The evidence of hiring the criminals in lieu of the amount should also be looked by this Court and further the nature of offence is serious, the documents should not be analyzed threadbare and their admissibility or inadmissibility in a bail application should not be looked into and given a consideration while granting bail.

¶25

Learned A.G.A. also opposed the prayer for bail and argued that there is evidence coming forth in the present

¶26

matter being confessional statement of the applicant. The statement corroborating the recovery and also the statement of co-accused Rohit alias Rohtas before the police who has also named the applicant as being instrumental in the matter.

¶27

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records it is clear that the applicant is not named in the first information report, his name does not surface in the statements of any of the witnesses. Chargesheet against the applicant and nine other persons, who were named in the first information report, has been filed by the Investigating Officer on 12.11.2018. The judgements as relied upon by the learned counsel for the first informant are distinguishable on the facts as that of the present case. The name of the applicant surfaced only when he was arrested on 08.08.2018 by the police of Police Station Tappal, District Aligarh wherein he had confessed his involvement in the present matter. The present case is a case of circumstantial in nature. There is no direct evidence coming forth which would go to show the involvement of the applicant. The noting of the Investigating Officer recording the CCTV footage is vague as there is no description of anyone being seen at the place of occurrence committing the murder. The applicant has been shown to be present within or at the place of occurrence which would not go to show his involvement. Role of the applicant is distinguishable from that of nine named accused persons.

¶28

Looking the facts and circumstance it is fit case for bail.

¶29

Let the applicant Sagar Rana be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal

¶30

bond and two heavy sureties (in which one of the sureties will be his family member or his close relative) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶31

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶32

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶33

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶34

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶35

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court

¶36

absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶37

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶38

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶39

The bail application is allowed.

¶40

Order Date :- 26.2.2020

¶41

Asha

¶42

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Sagar Rana v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Rana 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Armana Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Vs State of U.P.

Rubi Alias Upasana Vs State of U.P.

Tejram Vs State of U.P.

Pinku Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Singh Vs State of U.P.