The applicant, accused of shooting incidents resulting in death and injury, sought bail. The Single Judge held that no case for bail was made out due to the gravity of the charges and the applicant's criminal history, dismissing the application.
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. - 1441 of 2022
Applicant :- Manish Sethiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Ranjan Mishra,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajiv Lochan Shukla
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Shri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Alok Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA for the State through video conferencing mode.
Briefly the prosecution case set out in the F.I.R. is that the informant's uncle Mukesh Agarwal was having a conversation with a neighbour sitting at the platform (Chabutara) of his house. Dipesh Sethiya and his adherents arrived by his Scorpio Car and on finding a motorcycle parked on the road, the said Dipesh Sethiya and his adherent Akhilesh Vishwakarma started hurling abuses. On hearing the noise, the father of the informant rushed outside the house. No sooner other adherents and family members of the said Dipesh Sethiya gathered at the spot. Suddenly Dipesh and Rakesh opened fire. All of the informant's side ran helter skelter to save themselves. Sethiya brothers fired indiscriminately causing the death of Ashok Agrawal
and injuries to Mukesh Agrawal.
Shri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Alok Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant contends that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the incident. The statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is unreliable as it was delayed and was made to falsely implicate the applicant.
Resisting the bail application, Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA and Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the informant contend that the statement of the injured Mukesh Agrawal identified the applicant as one of the principal offenders who fired the shots which left one dead and one injured. The statement of the injured is consistent with the F.I.R., the injury report and corroborates the role of the applicant in the shooting. This is not a case of a petty neighbourhood dispute escalating into a brawl. The applicant and many of his family members are persons of criminal antecedents. They have unleashed a reign of terror in the neighbourhood. They claim immunity from the threat of being brought to justice. The applicant, in particular, has a criminal history running continuously over a period of one decade. The applicant is capable of reoffending and shall also influence the witnesses. These concerns have already been stated by the injured witness as well in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The statement of the injured witness is reliable
and was given soon after he was in a position to make the statement to the investigation officer. The applicant is accused of shooting at a public place. Such acts of violence create a terror in the neighbourhood and results in loss of faith in the rule of law.
I see merit in the submissions of Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA and Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the informant.
At this stage, no case for bail is made out.
The bail application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.2.2022 Dhananjai
2 issues framed by the court
Whether merit of the applicant in the bail application is made out given the allegations of shooting causing death and injury.
Whether the applicant is capable of reoffending and influencing witnesses based on criminal antecedents.
Manish Sethiya
State of U.P.
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
