The court rejected a bail application where the accused, convicted for murder, was alleged to have suppressed facts in gun license applications and had criminal antecedents involving the Bikru kand case. The court cited likelihood of fleeing and tampering.
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. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27357 of 2021
Applicant :- Deepak @ Deep Prakash @ Deepu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over bail application moved by accused-applicant, Deepak @ Deep Prakash @ Deepu, in Case Crime No. 322 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accusedapplicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 12.01.2021 because of being brother of main accused of Bikru kand; the provision of Arms Act never required for disclosure of case, which was not in existence at the time of giving application for grant of license and application filled, in the year 1997, was with mention of facts, present at that time, and page-48A of the paper book continued with 49, 50, 51 to 56 reveals that application was filled with all disclosure of facts existing at that time and after inquiry, license for DBBL gun was granted, though it was, subsequently, cancelled and arm was got deposited; the subsequent license of Rifle, granted in the year 2007, was of disclosure with other facts, too, but as his resident has been demolished; each thing has been damaged and he is behind the Bar, hence, not aware about the contents of these documents; it may be seen from the counter affidavit filed by learned AGA; moreso, there is specific mention that non disclosure of any facts or suppression of any material facts, will amount to Section 30 of Arms Act, which is punishable maximum sentence for six months and applicant is languishing in jail, hence he is to be enlarged on bail; the criminal antecedents have been explained by the applicant in paragraph 18, 22 of the affidavit, wherein, in three cases seriatim, he is acquitted and in one case, is convicted, but he is on bail granted by this Court in Criminal Appeal; there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Sri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently opposed with this contention that applicant is convicted for offence of murder, wherein, he was enlarged on
bail, but he is of criminal antecedents of many cases including one case of Bikru kand, wherein 08 police personnel including officers were got killed by accused persons and criminal antecedents have been mentioned at page-31, annexure-03 of the counter affidavit; under above circumstances, bail in appeal was against the settled proposition of law, but for disposal of this bail application, those circumstances are still aggravating circumstances; an application form for grant of DBBL Gun license in the year 1997 filled by the applicant itself, reveals that it was with suppression of material facts and non disclosure of required facts; this form was filled by the applicant by mentioning his name as Deep Prakash son of Ram Kumar, resident of Village- Bikru, Police Station Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat, whereas applicant is Deepak @ Deep Prakash @ Deepu son of Ram Kumar, resident of village Bikru, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Dehat, but nowhere this alias name was given in above application except one name Deep Prakash was written in application by his wife; no such disclosure of alias name was there; criminal antecedents and conviction, if any, in the name of family members were also suppressed in the application form and these facts were not disclosed; it is admitted fact that this DBBL license was cancelled, then after gun was deposited with Arms Dealer not with government, moreso, once this license was cancelled and subsequent application for granting license of Rifle was moved, then it was must be disclosed as per required provision and column given in the form, but nowhere this was disclosed about the conviction and enlargement on bail, hence other criminal antecedents, too, were not disclosed in the application and the form was confessed to be moved after change of police station as well as jurisdiction of police station concerned, though applicant was under knowledge of his cancellation of previous gun license, but all those facts were misconceived, suppressed and intentionally, wrongly suppressed for procuring license of Rifle, even in the form of Police Form No. 47, name of village was written as Bheeti not Bikru; this too was suppressed; forged and fabricated suppressed proof etc. were used for grant of license; under above facts and circumstances of the case and criminal antecedents of the accused and involvement in Bikru kand, there is every likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail, hence it may be rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through materials on record, it is apparent that applicant is of three alias name and at different time, he had given his name without mentioning his alias name; this camouflage was there since the beginning and material facts required in the form were not
given; license for gun was cancelled; subsequently, application for granting license of Rifle without mentioning cancellation of previous gun and conviction in the case of murder was got filled; criminal antecedents of family members, those, who were closely blood related were also not given in the form.
Considering all those facts and circumstances of the case, heinousness of offence, likelihood of tampering with evidence in case of release on bail as well as likelihood of fleeing from course of justice, but without commenting on merits of the case, there appears to be no ground for bail.
Accordingly, this Bail Application stands rejected.
Order Date :- 20.1.2022 Dhirendra/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused considering his criminal antecedents, alleged suppression of facts in arms license applications, and likelihood of fleeing or tampering with evidence.
Deepak @ Deep Prakash @ Deepu
Ram Krishna Gautam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
