The High Court criminally disposed of a bail application filed by Rajkishore Dwivedi in a murder and attempt to murder case, rejecting the prayer for bail as the case was not fit for release.
Bail application rejected; trial to be concluded within two years.
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.
Reserved on 22.8.2022 Delivered on 26.8.2022
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4233 of 2022
Applicant :- Rajkishore Dwivedi Opposite Party :- State Of Up Through Secretary Home U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajiv Lochan Shukla
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Rajkishore Dwivedi, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0084 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 307, 302, 34 IPC, Police Station Lalapur, DistrictPrayagraj, during pendency of trial.
There is allegation in the FIR regarding the commission of offences of rioting, extension of threat, attempt to murder and causing of murder of the father of the informant.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is owner of the land situated at Deruhaiya hills, Shankergarh. The deceased was a criminal involved in illegal mining and several cases are registered against him. The family of the applicant tried to stop illegal activities of the deceased and the applicant also made a complaint to the mining department against him. Thereafter deceased and his family members threatened the applicant and his family members of dire consequence. He has submitted that from the report of forensic laboratory, firing pin markings on the disputed cartridge differ from the firing pin
markings of tested cartridges. This shows that the gun of the applicant was not used in the alleged crime. There is no direct eye witnesses against the applicant. Co-accused, Rajendra Dwivedi has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49976 of 2021. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he is languishing in jail since 01.9.2021.
Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced on the behalf of the applicant. He has submitted that the name of the applicant from his birth was Kaushal Kishore Dwivedi and he appeared in high school examination in the year 2001 and 2002 in that name and failed. Thereafter he changed his name to Raj Kishore Dwivedi and passed high school examination in the year 2004. He has criminal history of two cases in the name of Kaushal Kishore Dwivedi. He has submitted that the applicant killed the father of the informant by double barrel gun and also firing upon the applicant to kill him. The informant is the eye-witness of the murder of his father. There was prior enmity regarding illegal mining between the parties and the role of coaccused, Rajendra Dwivedi, is distinguishable from the role of the applicant.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
After hearing rival submissions, this Court finds that the main role of causing death of the father of the informant by firing from his double barrel gun has been assigned in the FIR and in the statements of the witnesses to the applicant. It is stated that four co-accused persons are still absconding. In the bail application the
2 of 3
applicant has not disclosed criminal history of two cases. Later in the rejoinder affidavit it has been admitted and explained.
It is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected at this stage.
The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two years.
Order Date :- 26.8.2022 Ruchi Agrahari
3 of 3
Digitally signed by RUCHI AGRAHARI Date: 2022.08.29 12:13:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving serious offences including murder and attempt to murder.
Whether the applicant's criminal history affects the fitness of this case for bail.
Whether a bail application should be rejected if the applicant has not disclosed prior criminal history.
Rajkishore Dwivedi
State Of Up Through Secretary Home U.P. Lucknow
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
