Allowed

Atul Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lucknow

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2022/11828/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving murder and attempt to murder. Noting that key witnesses were examined and evidence tampering unlikely, the court held the applicant entitled to bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of like amount.

Atul Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Reserved

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11828 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Atul Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- S M Singh Royekwar,Shiv Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,B M Sahai,Brij Mohan Sahai,Janardan Singh,Kailash Nath Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sukhdev Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri I.B. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ishan Singh & Sri B.M. Sahai, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Rajeev Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.66 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police StationUmribegumganj, District Gonda, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to political enmity and is in jail since 4.4.2020. He further submits that in seven cases out of nine cases, either he was acquitted or final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer and the Case Crime No.68/2020 under Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Umribegumganj, Gonda is of suit of present crime and he was also implicated in two cases under the provisions of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, in which, he was exonerated. He further submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 12.8.2021 with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and the Superintendent of Police as well as Joint Director Prosecution, Gonda were directed to ensure the presence of witnesses before the court below. In the charge sheet name of 42 prosecution witnesses have been shown as out of (12) twelve have already been examined. As he also submitted that as per the prosecution case the said incident was taken place when the meeting in

¶9

relation to inquiry on some complaint of MANREGA was going on in the presence of some officials and it was being video-graphed and the compact disk was provided by the officials to the Investigating Officer, which was seen by the presiding officer and P.W.1 as well as P.W.2 were recalled and they were re-examined on 13.10.2021 and in the visuals, they did not find the applicant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as two persons died due to indiscriminate firing of associates of the informant and as there is no possibility of tampering the evidences, as all the witnesses of fact have been examined and cross examined, the Investigating Officer is being examined and he further submitted that as per the prosecution case, repeater is assigned to the applicant but no bullet injury was found on the body of the deceased, as the injury of bullet is found, therefore, he is entitled for bail.

¶11

Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate submits that the P.W.1 was examined on 29.11.2021 and thereafter, on number of occasions, case was adjourned on the request of the applicant only with the intention to delay the trial and he further submits that the applicant is having criminal antecedent and at this stage, the Investigating Officer is being examined and thereafter, the case listed for recording the statement of accused and also submitted that as per the provisions of Section 437(1) (i) Cr.P.C., such person shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and also relied on Section 437 (7) of Cr.P.C.

¶12

Sri B.M. Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the complainant also submits that after recording the statement, case be listed for recording the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., therefore, applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶13

Sri Rajeev Verma, learned A.G.A. also vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail of the applicant and submits that trial court may be directed to conclude the trial within stipulated period.

¶14

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and going through the record, as the submissions of Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior counsel for the complainant in relation to the applicability of Section 437(1)(i) as well as Section 437(7) of the Cr.P.C. does not apply on the Court of Sessions as well as High Court and, as it is not disputed by learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. that details of criminal history have been mentioned in para-38 of the bail application,

¶15

in which, it is mentioned that out of nine cases, in seven cases, either he has been acquitted or final report has been submitted and the case Crime No.68/2020 under Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act is of suit of the present case, as in relation to the incident in question, cross cases were lodged, as it is also undisputed that name of 42 witnesses have been shown in the charge-sheet and 12 witnesses have been examined again, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were recall after seeing compact disc and now the Investigating Officer is being examined as it is undisputed that all the witnesses of fact have already been examined and there is no possibility of tampering of the evidences as the applicant is in jail since 4.4.2020, therefore, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Let applicant - Atul Singh - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(1) Applicant will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

(2) Applicant will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.

¶19

(3) Applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 7.12.2022 Gaurav/-

¶22

Digitally signed by GAURAV PAL Date: 2022.12.07 18:25:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Atul Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Pher Vs Ram Singhasan Premmember Judicial Lucknow.

Najma Khatoon and Anr. Vs Jawed Ahmad Khan Manager A.I.T. Inter College Ayodhya and Ors.

Ravindra Singh Yadav Vs Sri Arvind Kumar Principal Secreatry Home Deptt.

Vinita Dixit Vs Vipin Kumar, Basic Education Officer, Auraiya and Another

Pushpendra Kumar Vs Dr. Anurag Yadav, Nayab Tehsildar, Ambedkar Nagar

Rajni Tiwari Vs Shri Shamim Khan, S.H.O. P.S.- Manak Nagar, Lko. and Others