Allowed

Rohit Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2022/2032/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Criminal Court allowed bail in a murder and robbery case where evidence relied solely on co-accused confessions. Bench granted release citing Article 21 and lack of independent corroborating evidence against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Rohit Singh was released on bail upon executing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding court attendance and cooperation.

Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2032 of 2021 Applicant :- Rohit Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Narendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 277 of 2020 Under sections 364, 394, 302, 201 and 411 I.P.C., Police Station Mill Area, District Raibareli.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant on 16.08.2020 at about 22.38 hours at Police Station Mill Area, District Raibareli against unknown persons and the same was registered as Case Crime No. 277 of 2020, under Section 406 I.P.C., alleging therein that that informant's Truck No. U.P. 42 BT-4700 was going to Ambedkar Nagar from Birla Cement Factory, Raibareli after loading 640 sacks of cement. When the informant contacted to his truck driver-Ved Prakash Tiwari at about 9.00 p.m. the driver told that he is sitting at Shyamu Dhaba and is having tea along with Cleaner of the truck,namely Prahlad Pandey. After some time when the informant tried to make contact with the driver, he was unable to contact with the driver as well as cleaner of the truck because of their mobile being switched off. Thereafter, the informant gave this information to the Police Station for taking appropriate action in the aforesaid matter.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the Investing Officer during investigation deleted Section 406 of I.P.C. and after collecting the material evidence and after recovery of the dead bodies of the driver and cleaner of the truck Sections 364, 394, 302, 201 and 411 I.P.C. were inserted.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that from the perusal of the prosecution version it transpires that there is no eye witness of the alleged incident and no specific role has been assigned to the applicant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the

¶11

applicant was not named in the F.I.R.. The name of the applicant has been taken by the co-accused in his confessional statement, namely, Ajay Singh and all the statements are almost same, from which it appears that the police has recorded the statement in a cyclostyled manner. No such thing happens, as alleged by the prosecution.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant was in his house on the date of incident. The police has falsely implicated the applicant in this case. No such looting of truck was ever happened nor the applicant has cooperated in the said happening.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Shyam Kishore Verma, who was working at Shyamu Dhaba, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he has stated on 14.08.2020 at about 9.00 p.m. that both the driver and cleaner of the aforesaid truck had come to his Dhaba and took tea. In the meantime Ajay Singh along with his three companions came to his Dhaba in a Wagon-R car and had a tea.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of Ajay Singh, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in his statement he admitted the crime and stated that he along with his three other companions Atul Singh, Amit Kumar Singh @ Monu Singh, Rohit Singh had a tea at the Dhaba and thereafter they planned for looting the aforesaid truck, thereafter they chased the truck and over took the truck and thereafter they were got into the truck and they attacked the driver and the cleaner with a steel rod and threw them in a Nala.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that from perusal of the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of all the other accused whose names were taken by Ajay Singh, namely the present applicant Rohit Singh, Atul, Amit and Jakir Hussain, the same version has been repeated that after looting the truck, Ajay Singh was driving the truck and the present applicant and other co-accused were in the truck and one coaccused was driving the Wagon-R car. Thereafter, they distributed the cement bags amongst each other and kept in their shops and houses.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the postmortem of truck driver and cleaner were conducted on 19.08.2020 and 23.08.2020 respectively and the Medical Officer has opined that the cause of death was Asphyxia due to ante mortem drowning.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances appearing against the applicant are based on the confessional statement of co-accused Ajay Singh made before the police, in which he has admitted that all the accused persons have committed the crime.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant further pointed out that there was no injury mark on the body or head of the dead persons by the iron rod or any other blunt object. The cause of death is not injury this shows that the statement of Ajay Singh and other coaccused were taken under pressure.

¶19

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 31.08.2020 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶21

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence and evidence against the applicant is based on the confessional statement of co-accused Ajay Singh and other coaccused made before the police and with no independent evidence to prima facie indicate his complicity and in view of the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶22

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶23

Let the applicant Rohit Singh involved in Case Crime No. 277

¶24

of 2020 Under sections 364, 394, 302, 201 and 411 I.P.C., Police Station Mill Area, District Raibareli be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶25

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶26

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure his presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶30

(6) The applicant shall remain present, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court 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.

¶31

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶32

(8) 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.

¶33

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶34

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶35

Order Date :- 15.2.2022 Arvind

¶36

Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.02.17 17:19:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rohit Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Gautam Vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Anr.

Shubham Patel Vs State of U.P.

Akash Singh Vs state of u.p. thru prin.secy. home lucknow

Nadeem Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jagat Pal Vs State of U.P.

Mangare @ Abdul Salam Vs State of U.P.