Allowed

Mukesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 May 2022BAIL/29717/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Rajeev Misra allowed bail applications filed jointly by six applicants in a case registered under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 of IPC for arms possession and affray resulting in death. Bail was granted without detailed reasons on the ground of parity with co-accused bail orders, imposing standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties under specific conditions.

Mukesh Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29717 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Om Narayan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhavya Sahai,Suresh Dhar Dwivedi

¶4

Connected with

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40776 of 2021

¶6

Applicant :- Rajiv Singh @ Guddu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vidya Bhaskar Singh,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi,Kamal Kishor Mishra,Manu Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Dhar Dwivedi

¶7

With

¶8

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42154 of 2021

¶9

Applicant :- Praveen Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Kishor Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Dhar Dwivedi

¶10

With

¶11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41901 of 2021

¶12

Applicant :- Sanjeev Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Kishor Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Dhar Dwivedi

¶13

With

¶14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2672 of 2022

¶15

Applicant :- Viresh Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home

¶16

Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Shukla,Vipul Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Dhar Dwivedi And

¶17

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45950 of 2021

¶18

Applicant :- Monu @ Ashish Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Shukla,Vipul Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Dhar Dwivedi

¶19

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶20

Heard Mr. Om Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for applicant Mukesh, Mr. Manish Tiwary, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Vidya Bhaskar Singh, learned counsel for applicant Rajiv Singh alias Guddu, Mr. Kamal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for applicants Praveen Singh and Sanjeev Singh, Mr. Radhey Shyam Shukla, learned counsel for applicants Viresh Singh and Monu alias Ashish Singh, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Suresh Dhar Dwivedi, and Mr. Abhay Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Bhavya Sahai, learned counsel for first informant.

¶21

ve been filed by applicants Mukesh, Rajiv Singh alias Guddu, Praveen Singh, Sanjeev Singh, Viresh Singh and Monu alias Ashish Singh seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 978 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 302, 120-B,IPC, P.S. Tilhar,, District Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶22

Perused the record.

¶23

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 8.12.2020, a prompt F.I.R. dated 8.12.2020, was lodged by first informant Awadhesh Kumar Varma and was registered as Case Crime No. 978 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 395, 307, 302, 120B, 34 IPC, P.S. Tilhar,, District Shahjahanpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R., fourteen persons namely Rajiv Singh, Sanjeev Singh, Praveen Singh, Arjan Singh, Ajaypal Singh, Pratipal, Viresh Pal Singh, Monu, Tonu, Rishipal, Naresh, Bhoore, Mukesh and bother-in-law (shale) of Guddu have been nominated as named accused, whereas three unknown persons have also been arraigned as accused.

¶24

The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is that named accused armed with licensed (fire arms) and country

¶25

made pistol as well as lathis and danda , banka, knife and swords etc. with a common intention assaulted Rajeev Kumar, on account of which he sustained injuries.

¶26

After registration of aforementioned F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr. P. C. The injured was medically examined. His medico legal report is on record at page 46 of the bail application of Viresh Singh. The injured sustained following injuries:-

¶27

1. L/W 2.5 cm Rt. side of Forehead, margin everted.

¶28

2. C/o Pain swelling Right arm, advise X-ray.

¶29

3. C/o Pain Swelling Lt. Forearm, Advise X-ray

¶30

4. C/o Pain Swelling L/W Rt. For leg, Adv. X-ray

¶31

5. C/o Pain Swelling L/W Lt. Foreleg, Adv. X-ray

¶32

Subsequently, the injured died on same day i.e. on 8.12.2020. Thereafter, the post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. The Autopsy Surgeon found following ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-

¶33

1. Stitched wound 5 cm on left side of head, 9 cm above left ear on opening into wound deep no. of stitches (3)

¶34

2. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x bony deep over right side head 7 cm above right ear

¶35

3. Stitched wound 3 cm on right side forehead, 1.5 cm above right eyebrow on opening into bone deep no. of stitches (3)

¶36

4. Abraded contusion 1 cm x 1.5 cm on right side bridge of nose

¶37

5. Contusion 13 cm x 6 cm on right arm, 14 cm below right tip of shoulder underneath right humerus bone fracture

¶38

6. Contusion abrasion 8 cm x 3 cm on posterolateral aspect of left forearm 8 cm, above left wrist joint underneath left radius ulna facture

¶39

7. Multiple abraded contusion present on places of back vary in sizes largest 18 cm x 11 cm smallest 2 cm x 1 cm 6 in no.

¶40

8. Multiple lacerated wound present on front of right leg in area of 17 cm x 5 cm vary in sizes largest 5 cm x 2 cm smallest 1 cm x0.5 cm x bony deep margin irregular 4 in no. underneath right tibia fibula fracture

¶41

9. Multiple lacerated wound present on front of left leg in area of 16 cm x 3 cm vary in sizes largest 2 cm x 1 cm on smallest 1 cm x 1 cm x bony deep underneath left tibia fibula found in fracture 5 in no.

¶42

10. Contusion 8 cm x 4 cm on anterolateral aspect of left thigh just above left knee underneath left femur bone fracture with underneath femur seen fracture.

¶43

During course of investigation, Investigating Officer made following recoveries:-

¶44

(1) Danda from Mukesh

¶45

(2) Danda from Vijay

¶46

(3) Danda from Ankit Singh @ Tonu

¶47

(4) Danda from Ashish Singh @ Monu

¶48

(5) Iron rod from Viresh

¶49

(6) Iron rod from Rajeev alias Guddu

¶50

During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and various other witnesses including eyewitnesses namely Suresh Verma, Rajesh, Ram Baran and Sarita in terms of Section 161 Cr. P. C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him, Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet dated 5.3.2021, whereby accused Prati Pal and Virendra have been charge sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 302 and 120B IPC, whereas accused Rajeev, Ajay Pal, Viresh Pal, Monu @ Ashish Singh, Tonu @ Ankit Singh, Bhoore Mukesh and Vijay have been charge sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 302 IPC. Investigation in respect of accused Sanjeev, Praveen Singh, Arjun Singhy, Rishi Pal Singh and Mukesh is said to be pending.

¶51

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants jointly contends that though all the applicants are named in the F.I.R., but they are innocent. It is then contended that as per the charge sheet dated 5.3.2021, the accused can be divided into two categories (a) conspirators (b) actual assailants. The conspirators of the crime namely Prati Pal Singh and Virendra @ Madan have been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order dated 31.8.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22765 of 2021 (Prati Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.) and 27.10.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26974 of 2021 (Virendra @ Madan Vs. State of U.P.).

¶52

It is then contended that seven of the named accused namely

¶53

Arjun Singh, Ajay Pal, Bhurey Singh, Vijay Kumar Singh, Rishipal Singh and Tonu alias Ankit Singh have been assigned the role of assault. They have also been enlarged on bail, the details of which are mentioned herein under:-

¶54

(1) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38806 of 2021 (Arjun Singh Vs. State of U.P.), vide order dated 16.12.2021

¶55

(2) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42197 of 2021 (Ajay Pal Vs. State of U.P.), vide order dated 8.11.2021

¶56

(3) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24958 of 2021 (Bhurey Singh Vs. State of U.P.), vide order dated 8.09.2021

¶57

(4) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37588 of 2021 (Vijay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.), vide order dated 2.3.2022

¶58

(5) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45510 of 2021 (Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P.), vide order dated 02.11.2021

¶59

(6) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45405 of 2021 (Naresh Singh Vs. State of U.P.), vide order dated 8.2.2022

¶60

(7) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43094 of 2021 (Tonu alias Ankit Singh Vs. State of U.P.), vide order dated 02.03.2022.

¶61

Learned counsel for applicants then submit that case of the present applicants is similar and identical to aforementioned coaccused, who have already been enlarged on bail. The role assigned to the accused mentioned in F.I.R. is general. No specific role has been assigned to any of the named accused. It is also contended that four of the named accused namely Rajeev (armed with licensed gun), Ajay Pal (armed with licensed rifle), Arjun Singh (armed with rifle) and Prati Pal (armed with a country made pistol) are also alleged to have committed the crime in question. However, the deceased has not sustained any firearm injury. The author of the injuries sustained by the deceased have not been specified in the F.I.R. Role assigned to all the co-accused is common and general. There is no such distinguishing feature, on the basis of which case of present applicants can be distinguished from aforementioned coaccused, who have already been enlarged on bail. As such, for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail orders of aforementioned co-accused, applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶62

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and Mr. Suresh Dhar Dwivedi, and Mr. Abhay Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Bhavya Sahai, learned counsel for first informant have opposed these applications for bail. They submit that since applicants are named accused, they are not entitled to any indulgence by this

¶63

Court.However, they could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by learned Senior counsel as well as the learned counsel for applicants.

¶64

Having heard learned Senior counsel for applicant and learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the state, learned counsel for first informant, 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, the applicants have made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail applications are allowed.

¶65

Let the applicants Mukesh, Rajiv Singh alias Guddu, Praveen Singh, Sanjeev Singh, Viresh Singh and Monu alias Ashish Singh involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice :-

¶66

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicants shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶67

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶68

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶69

(iv) The applicants 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of

¶70

liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶71

Order Date :- 4.5.2022 HSM

¶72

Digitally signed by HARI SHANKER MISHRA Date: 2022.05.04 17:09:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ausan Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Ram Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandan Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Pasi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ali Bhejan @ Javed Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Singh Vs State of U.P.