Allowed

Rajesh Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 May 2022BAIL/49613/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Rajesh Singh seeking release in a murder case involving two deceased persons. High Court allowed bail citing lack of cogent evidence, reliance solely on confessional statements, and parity with co-accused, while imposing strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties with conditions against witness tampering and mandatory court appearances.

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

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49613 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari,Prashant Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Radhey Shyam Maurya,Rajeev Upadhyay

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Rajesh Singh under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 34 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 120-B, 201, 194 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Khanpur, District Ghazipur during the pendency of the trial after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, vide order dated 4.8.2021.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 22.2.2021 has been lodged against unknown persons by the father of the deceased stating that his son was posted as Constable at Police Station- Gauriganj, District Amethi. On 13.2.2021, his son came to his house for 15 days on earned leave. On 22.2.2021, at about 3:30 A.M., he received a call and he went towards road about one kilometer. At about 7:00 A.M., the first informant was informed that some unknown persons shot upon his son by a fire-arm. On information, he reached at the place and found his son was bleeding and was alive and on the way of going to the hospital his son was died.

¶8

After lodging of the first information report, inquest of the body of the deceased Ajay Kumar was conducted on 22.2.2021 at 13:20 hours. Post of the body of the deceased Ajay Kumar was also conducted on 5:10 P.M. As post-mortem report of the deceased Ajay Kumar one entry wound, right side of forehead and one exist wound, left side frontal temporal, were found on the person of the deceased blackening was also present around the wound. On 23.2.2021 at 12:40 hours, the applicant has

¶9

informed the police station Khanpur, District Ghazipur with regard to dead body of his daughter Saniya aged about 24 years, which is lying in the field of wheat. Inquest of the body of the deceased Saniya has also been conducted on 23.2.2021. As per inquest report, six injuries were found on the person of the deceased Saniya.

¶10

After recording the statement of prosecution witnesses, on 20.5.2021 charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant and his four family members. The applicant was arrested on 25.2.2021.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that the first information report has been lodged against unknown persons. He further submits that the applicant and other accused persons arrested by the police only on the basis of confessional statement. He next submits that the applicant and his family members have falsely been roped in the present case. He next submits that except the confessional statement, there is no other evidence collected during course of investigation against the applicant. He further submits that the deceased Ajay Kumar solemnized marriage with Saniya, the daughter of applicant prior to two years of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that at the time of recovery of body of deceased Ajay Kumar, two pistols were recovered from the possession of the deceased Ajay Kumar.

¶12

He further submits that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. It is further submitted that the distance, where two dead bodies were recovered by the police, was about one kilometer. It is further submitted that co-accused Awadhraj, Ankit Singh @ Shanu and Smt. Neelam having similar role have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.01.2022, 31.3.2022 and 27.10.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 32210 of 2021, 32947 of 2021 and 32551 of 2021 respectively. It is further submitted that the applicant be also enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.02.2021 having no criminal history. It is lastly submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra , learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the first informant have supported the order passed by the Sessions Court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and they further submit that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But, they could not point out any material to the contrary. They further submit that in

¶14

case the applicant is released on bail, he will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶16

(a) The first information report has been lodged against the unknown persons;

¶17

(b) The applicant is father of the deceased Saniya;

¶18

¶19

(d) Except the confessional statement, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant;

¶20

(e) The distance between the place of recovery of two dead bodies, is about one kilometer;

¶21

(f) At the time of recovery of dead body of deceased Ajay Kumar, two pistols were recovered from his possession;

¶22

(g) Co-accused Awadhraj, Ankit Singh @ Shanu and Smt. Neelam having similar role have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court;

¶23

It is settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶24

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed .

¶25

Let applicant, Rajesh Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two

¶26

reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶27

(i) The applicant 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶28

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶29

(iii) The applicant 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶30

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶31

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶32

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

¶33

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient case, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

¶34

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance of law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶35

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶36

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning

¶37

the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶38

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶39

Order Date :- 23.5.2022 CS/

¶40

Digitally signed by CHANDAN SINGH Date: 2022.05.25 14:22:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Singh 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

Anubhav Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Adil and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Ranjana Umar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Meena Devi Vs State of U.P.

Dhamandi Vs State of U.P.