Hon'ble Justice Rajeev Misra allowed two bail applications filed by Anil Kumar Prajapati and Sagar Ambasht in a murder case. The Court granted bail contingent upon the furnishing of a personal bond and two sureties each.
Release of the applicants on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each with specified conditions.
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. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33419 of 2021
Applicant :- Anil Kumar Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Chaubey,Syed Imran Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Praveen Kumar Singh and
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22631 of 2021
Applicant :- Sagar Ambasht Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sameer Jain,Vinod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamal Kumar Singh,Praveen Kumar Singh,Syed Imran Ibrahim
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
24.03.2022 and this Court passed following order:- "Heard Mr. Vivek Chaubey, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
At the very outset, learned A.G.A. submits that following bail application filed by co-accused is already pending before this Court.
(i) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22631 of 2021 (sAgar Ambasht Vs. State of U.P) In view of above, connect aforementioned criminal misc. bail application along with this� application for bail.
Matter shall reappear as fresh on 31.3.2022 along with connected matter.
Order Date :- 24.3.2022 "
shop. The persons, who came to the shop of employer of owner of the shop namely Pankaj Rai had scuffled with Pankaj Rai. At this juncture one of the persons fired gun shot at the owner of the shop namely Pankaj Raji, on account of which he sustained gun shot injury. Injured Pankaj Rai was taken to Truma Center where he was undergoing treatment.
i. Anay Kumar Verma (from this person a licenced revolver of 32 Bore was recovered).
ii. Anil Kumar Parjapati and Sagar Ambasht (from these persons revolvers were also recovered).
cloth. Since they are residing in the same locality/vicinity, he could fully identify them. The role of firing the fatal gun shot injury was attributed to Ajay Kumar Verma. Subsequently, the Call Details Report (CDR) of the Mobile No. of Ajay Kumar Verma i.e. Moble No. 7293855997 and that of the Mobile number of Anil Kumar Prajapati which is 8303995521 were collected. It was thus discovered that on 17.04.2021 there was a telephonic conversation in between Anil Kumar Prajapat and Ajay Kumar Sharma at 5.30 PM. which lasted for nine seconds. The CCTV Footage installed at the shop of injured Pankaj Rai as well as in the vicinity was also examined by the Investigating Officer. The CCTV Footage shows that the three persons were seen in CCTV footage, who had concealed their identity by covering there faces with a peace of cloth. Thereafter three eye witnesses namely Ritesh Pandey, Tarun Vishwkarma and Ashish Bind were examined by Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. All the three persons narrated the same prosecution story by stating that all the three persons came at the shop of the injured by covering their faces by putting clothes on their faces and thereafter occurrence took place. However, none of the witnesses identified the accused/applicant did author.
" Heard Sri Satish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for State and perused the material available on record.
Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No. 0211 of 2021, under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 27/30 Arms Act, Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi, applied for bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits in following manner :-
(i) The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated
in the present case. He has committed no offence.
(ii) The applicant is not named in F.I.R. but his name came into light during investigation.
(iii) The deceased Pankaj Rai is said to have died after two months of the incident. There is no public witness in support of prosecution case. The incident is said to have taken place in the dark hour of night.
(iv) The F.I.R. has been lodged by one Ashish Kumar Bind, employee of the deceased, in which he did not disclose the name of applicant, even in the statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he did not open the name of applicant. Statement of victim or any other witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not been recorded by police. There is no dying declaration of deceased while he took last breath after two months of the incident.
(v) Applicant is in jail since 19.04.2021. There is no possibility of the applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the accusedapplicant is real culprit, who opened fire on the victim (now deceased) which hit in his stomach. The entire incident has been covered in C.C.T.V. camera. The licensee revolver which has been allegedly used in the commission of offence, has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. In the statement of victim himself recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he disclosed the name of applicant as assailant
which can be treated as dying declaration. The victim recognized the applicant as assailant, being resident of near vicinity.
Having regard to the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, statement of victim / deceased himself recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., injury found on the person of deceased, manner in which incident took place, severity of punishment in case of conviction, evidence collected by I.O. during investigation and without commenting upon the merit of the case, applicant deserves no bail.
Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 10.11.2021 "
eleven months of incarceration. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. As charge-sheet has already been submitted, the evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution against applicant stands crystallised therefore, custodial arrest of applicants is not absolutely necessary during the course of trial. On the cumulative strength of aforesaid, learned senior counsel for applicant thus urged that applicants be enlarged on bail.
the learned counsel for applicant-Sagar Ambasht, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Manish Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for first informant. applicants have made out a case for bail.
(i) Applicants will not tamper with prosecution evidence.
(ii) Applicants will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) Applicants will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) Applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
Order Date :- 6.4.2022 YK
Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33419 of 2021
Applicant :- Anil Kumar Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Chaubey,Syed Imran Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Praveen Kumar Singh
and
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22631 of 2021
Applicant :- Sagar Ambasht Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sameer Jain,Vinod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamal Kumar Singh,Praveen Kumar Singh,Syed Imran Ibrahim
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Crl. Misc. Exemption Application No.1 of 2021.
Order Date :- 6.4.2022 YK
Digitally signed by YASHWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.04.12 18:48:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants are entitled to bail despite being charge-sheeted accused in a case involving murder.
Whether the plight of the applicants justifies release on bail after incarceration for more than eleven months.
Whether bail conditions can be framed to ensure the fair course of the trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajay Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶12
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39432 of 2021
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Kumar Prajapati
Sagar Ambasht
State of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
