Allowed

Rajveer Singh and 2 Other v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2022BAIL/45135/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment granted bail to applicants appearing under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The High Court of Allahabad found it to be a fit case for bail considering the applicants had no criminal history, the delay in lodging the FIR, and jail overcrowding due to the pandemic. The application was allowed with conditional release on personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each on specific conditions.

Rajveer Singh and 2 Other Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 92 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45135 of 2021 Applicant :- Rajveer Singh And 2 Other Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kripa Shanker Yadav, Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajendra Kumar

¶2

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Kripa Shanker Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Munne Lal, the learned AGA for the State.

¶4

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicants- Rajveer Singh, Sirohi @ Viprakumar and Deepu for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.69 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 427 IPC, registered at Police Station- Sakeet, DistrictEtah.

¶5

The bail application so preferred by the applicants has been rejected by the court below on 27.9.2021.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that a first information report has been lodged by Manoj against the applicants before P.S. Sakeet, District Etah being FIR no.0069 of 2021 on 16.4.2016 at 9:00 hours under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 427, 379, 452 and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 relatable to the commissioning of offence on 1.12.2015 wherein according to the prosecution version the complainant was in the house of the aspirant who was contestant of Pradhan of the villate and the complainant at the relevant point of time was appealing to the villagers to cast their valuable votes and when seeing the same the applicants herein along with 12 others attacked and in such a manner and that they used countrymade pistol and made gunshot injuries to two injured one Rajpal Singh and second being Somesh Kumar thereafter fled away. Learned counsel for the applicants has further argued that the first information report was lodged after a period of four months as the incident is shown to have been occurred on 1.12.2015 as well as the first information report was lodged on 16.4.2016. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of this court towards page 18 of the bail application so as to contend that even in fact SHO Sri Jai Singh Parihar has lodged first information report on 1.12.2015 at 14.10. hours, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. and Section 25/27 Indian Arms Act, 1969 against as many as 11 accused inclusive of the

¶7

complainant wherein allegation was levelled.

¶8

In nutshell, the argument of learned counsel for the applicants is to the extent that the FIR so sought to be lodged against the applicants is an FIR lodged after a long span of time that too with enormous delay and falsely implicated the applicants as the police personnel themselves have lodged FIR regarding commission of offence by the complainant and their fraction.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has further drawn the attention of this court towards page 29/30 so as to contend that the entire story so sought to been engineered by the complainant being the injury report is of a private hospital and not of a government hospital and thus the same does not inspire any confidence. He has further argued that no specific role has been assigned as the even in fact the allegations contained in the FIR are of general nature and he has further argued while referring to the paragraph 16 he does not possess any criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicants has further argued that the applicant is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 10.9.2021. If he is enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty, he be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Countering the said submission, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail while arguing that offence has been committed by the applicants, though he could not dispute that the fact that FIR in question has been lodged after four months and further the fact that police officials have themselves lodged FIR against the complainant and the applicants have no criminal history.

¶11

Sri Ajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant has adopted the arguments of the learned AGA however he additionally argued that the applicants have committed offence and even in fact injuries were sustained by the complainant side which is already available on record.

¶12

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as the applicants do not possess any criminal history and is languishing in jail since 10.9.2021, it is a cross case, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶13

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before

¶14

the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶15

In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Rajveer Singh, Sirohi @ Viprakumar and Deepu involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶17

i) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶19

(iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

(iv) The applicants 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

Any observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.

¶25

Order Date :- 14.2.2022 piyush

¶26

Digitally signed by PIYUSH KUMAR Date: 2022.02.15 17:41:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajveer Singh and 2 Other v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajveer Singh and 2 Other 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samruddin Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Awadhesh Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Rathi @ Sonu Rathi Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Binda Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P.