Dismissed

Tinku Singh v. State of U.P., through Its Principal Secretary

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2022BAIL/2465/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed bail applications filed by Tinku Singh and Umesh in a murder case. While two co-accused were previously granted bail, the Court distinguished the current applicants due to specific allegations against them, noting interlinked roles and eyewitness evidence, and found no ground to enlarge them on bail.

What did the court decide?

None. The bail applications of applicants Tinku Singh and Umesh are rejected.

Tinku Singh Vs State of U.P., through Its… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2465 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Tinku Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P., Through Its Principal Secretary Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singh Bishen Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Connected with

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2469 of 2022

¶6

Applicant :- Umesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singh Bishen Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶7

Heard Mr. Anurag Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Anil Kumar Singh Bishen, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶8

These applications for bail have been filed by applicants Tinku Singh and Umesh seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 594 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 506 IPC, P.S.Jagdishpura, District Agra, during pendency of trial.

¶9

Perused the record.

¶10

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 17.09.2020, a delayed F.I.R. dated 28.10.2020 was lodged by first informant Ranjeet Singh and was registered as Case Crime No. 594 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 506 IPC, P.S.Jagdishpura, District Agra. In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons namely Umesh and Tinku, (applicants herein) and Radhey Shyam and Fall Singh, have been arraigned as named accused.

¶11

The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R.

¶12

is that named accused assaulted Manju Devi with a shovel, killed her and thereafter disposed of her body.

¶13

After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating OfÏcer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr. P. C. As per the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. one Girija, daughter of the deceased, is an eyewitness of the alleged occurrence. Investigating OfÏcer examined aforesaid eyewitness under Section 161 Cr. P. C. Her statement is on record at page 15 of the paper book. This witness has supported the prosecution story and has also implicated all the four accused in the crime in question. Ultimately, Investigating OfÏcer upon completion of investigation of concerned case crime number, has submitted the charge sheet dated 24.1.2021, whereby all the named accused have been charge sheeted under Sections 302, 201, 506 IPC.

¶14

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants contends that though applicants are named as well as charge sheeted accused, but they are innocent. Applicants have been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. Allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and concocted. As such, applicants are being falsely prosecuted in aforementioned case crime number.

¶15

It is then submitted that co-accused Fall Singh has been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order dated 30.9.2021, which reads as under:-

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶17

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has not committed any offence. Alleged incident has been shown of 17.09.2020 but FIR has been lodged on 28.10.2020. It was submitted that the statement of alleged eye-witness Girja regarding involvement of applicant is not reliable and that applicant has been falsely implicated merely because he is father of main co-accused Umesh. The recovery of spade has been made at the instance of co-accused Umesh and that some part of dead-body of deceased were

¶18

also recovered at the instance of co-accused Umesh. It was stated that it was the co-accused Umesh, who has earlier enticed away the deceased, and thereafter, the deceased and her daughters were living with co-accused Umesh. Learned counsel has submitted that even as per alleged eye-witness Girja, no specific role has been attributed to applicant. Learned counsel has submitted that mere presence of applicant at spot would not make him culprit in the alleged incident. It has been submitted that the role of co-accused Umesh is distinguished from applicant. It has been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.10.2020 having no criminal history and that in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in FIR and that alleged eye-witness Girja has stated that applicant and co-accused Umesh and Radheyshayam have committed murder of deceased.

¶20

Considering the entire facts, it appears that the main role in the incident is of co-accused Umesh with whom deceased was living with her children as his wife and that recovery of weapons and parts of dead-body of deceased have also been made at the instance of co-accused Umesh and that applicant is father of said co-accused Umesh.

¶21

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶22

The bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let the applicant Fall Singh involved in Case Crime No.594 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 506 IPC, P.S. Jagdishpura, District Agra, be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶24

1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶25

2.The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶26

3.The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is

¶27

exempted.

¶28

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶29

5.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law."

¶31

It is next contended that another co-accused Radhe Shyam has also been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order dated 9.2.2022, which reads as under:-

¶32

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶33

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 594 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 506 IPC, Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra, during pendency of trial.

¶34

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case with ulterior motive. He did not commit any offence as alleged and has no concern whatsoever with it. He has no previous criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that there are general allegations; no motive is assigned to the applicant to commit the alleged offence as also nothing incriminating material was recovered from applicant's possession or his pointing out. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the bail order of co-accused - Fall Singh, who has identical role, dated 30.9.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12597 of 2021. He seeks parity. 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. The

¶35

applicant is languishing in jail since 28.10.2020. He undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted, therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶37

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶38

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Let the applicant Radhe Shyam involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶39

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶40

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶41

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, 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.; and

¶42

(4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶43

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties

¶44

will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶45

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

¶46

On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicants contends that case of applicant Tinku Singh is similar and identical to aforesaid coaccused, who have already been enlarged on bail. He, therefore, contends that for the facts and reasons mentioned in the bail orders of aforementioned co-accused, applicant Tinku is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which, the case of the applicant Tinku Singh can be distinguished from aforesaid coaccused so as to deny bail to applicant Tinku Singh. It is lastly contended that case of coaccused Umesh is clearly distinguishable from other three co-accused. Applicants are in jail since 28.10.2020. They have undergone 4 1/2 months of incarceration. In case, applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. On the aforesaid factual and legal premise, it is thus urged that applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶47

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed these applications for bail. Learned A.G.A. contends that Girija, daughter of the deceased is an eyewitness of the occurrence. She has clearly implicated the present applicants in the commission of crime and the subsequent disposal of the dead body of deceased after the criminality was committed upon the deceased. The role of the charge sheeted accused are interlinked and intertwined. He has then referred to the judgement of the Apex Court in Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P., 2016 (15) SCC 42 2 in support of his submission that in view or the nature of criminality committed upon the deceased, no case for parity is made out by applicants with co-accused who have been enlarged on bail. There is nothing on record to dislodge the credibility and reliability of the

¶48

eyewitness namely Girija. In the bail orders passed by this Court in respect of other two co-accused, this Court did not consider aforesaid aspect of the matter. As such, no benefit can be derived from the orders of co-accused.

¶49

Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the state, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and accusation made, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicants on bail.

¶50

The aforementioned bail applications are, accordingly, rejected.

¶51

Order Date :- 24.3.2022 HSM

¶52

Digitally signed by HARI SHANKER MISHRA Date: 2022.03.24 17:54:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tinku Singh v. State of U.P., through Its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tinku Singh v. State of U.P., through Its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalloo @ Kamal Jeet Vs State of U.P.

Harsharan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jakir Husain @ Jahid Husain and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Nadeem Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Halima Parveen Vs State of U.P.