Allowed

Kaptan Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2022BAIL/4716/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a bail application filed by Kaptan Singh and Chandra Pal Singh. The court noted their roles in a quarrel involving multiple offences under the IPC, the general role assigned to them in the FIR, and jail overcrowding during the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on personal bond and two sureties each subject to standard bail conditions including non-interference with witnesses and trial cooperation.

Kaptan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4716 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kaptan Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailesh Kumar Mishra,Vivek Kumar Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Vishvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vivek Kumar Sharma, who appears for the complainant and Sri Shrawan Kumar Ojha, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicants- Kaptan Singh and Chandra Pal Singh for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.103 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C, registered at Police Station- Iradatnagar, District- Agra.

¶8

The bail application so preferred by the applicants has been rejected by the court below on 17.1.2022.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that a first information report has been lodged by Sri Sahab Singh son of Sri Than Singh being FIR no. 0103 on 4.7.2021 at 7:26 hours with relation to the commission of offence on 3.7.2021 at 19:30 hours against the applicants, who are two in number, and 13 others with a further allegation that on unfateful day, i.e, 3.7.2021 at 19:30 hours, one Hari Om son of Hakim Singh and Rajveer son of Hakim Singh started quarreling with respect to water issues and at that point of time, Dhararveer, Bhupendra and applicant no.1 and Hari Om came on the site of the Rajveer Singh and started hurling abuses and threatened to attack the other fraction. When Rajveer resisted the same and told them to go back and not to intervene, as this is a dispute between the brothers, then the accused therein armed with cuddle, iron rod, countrymade pistol etc. came and accused Surendra was assigned the role of resorting to gunshot injuries upon Shiv

¶10

Shankar, which in the thigh and Narendra also resorted to gunshot injuries upon Arjun, which went away with the close vicinity of the ear. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention towards the injury report as well as Section 161 of the informant as well as of the injured so as to contend that not only in the FIR, but also in the statement so referred to above, in which general role has been assigned. Learned counsel for the applicants has next drawn the attention of this Court towards page-30(A) so as to contend that from the accused side, one Bunti has also lodged FIR under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 504, 506 IPC on 6.7.2021 on 12:18 hours against the complainant side. Learned counsel for the applicants has thus argued that they have been made scapegoat, they have not committed the said offence. Learned counsel for the applicants has further drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph17 of the bail application so as to contend that they are possessing criminal history of one case being Case Crime no. 121 of 2021, bail application whereof is pending and the same is post lodging of the present FIR. Learned counsel for the applicants has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the supplementary affidavit filed today, while further drawing attention of this Court towards paragraph-3, so as to contend that so far as Case Crime no. 60 of 2021 is concerned, the applicants are on bail and so far as Case Crime no.111A of 2006 is concerned is concerned, he has drawn the attention of this Court towards page-7 of the Supplementary Affidavit so as to contend that they have been acquitted in the said case. Learned counsel for the applicants has further invited the attention of this Court towards page-50 to 52 of the bail, while arguing that co-accused Surendra and Bunti have been enlarged on bail in Bail Application Nos. 40764 of 2021 and 36998 of 2021 on 17.12.2021 and 24.9.2021 and thus according to learned counsel for the applicants, they are unnecessarily languishing in jail since 3.1.2022. If the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail, they be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Countering the said submission, the learned AGA has opposed the bail while arguing that the applicants have committed offence and injuries have been sustained and so far as the FIR so lodged by the accused side being Bunti is concerned, same is after a period of three days from the incident and it is just in order to wriggle out from the position so created therein. However, he could not dispute the fact that the applicants have

¶12

satisfactorily explained the criminal history and further the fact that the co-accused have been enlarged on bail and general role has been assigned to the applicant.

¶13

Sri Vivek Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants has adopted the argument of the learned A.G.A. however, he has additionally argued that the applicants have committed the offence and merely because general role has been assigned in the FIR, vis-a-vis the statements will not be a ground to hold the applicants innocent, as the applicants themselves were present and they have aided and was instrumental in extending the injury to the injured, however, he could not dispute the fact that the co-accused have been granted bail and criminal history has been explained.

¶14

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 in the FIR as well as in the statements, general role has been assigned, criminal history has been explained, co-accused has been granted bail and the applicants are languishing in jail since 3.1.2022, 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Let the applicants- Kaptan Singh and Chandra Pal Singh 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 :-

¶18

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

¶19

investigation or trial.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

Order Date :- 3.3.2022

¶28

N.S.Rathour

¶29

Digitally signed by NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2022.03.04 10:35:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kaptan Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaptan Singh and Another 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

Vikas Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Amit Vs State of U.P.

Akeel Vs State of U.P.

Rohtash Vs State of U.P.

Avinash Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home