Rahul Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

1

Reserved On:- 31.08.2022 Delivered On:- 13.09.2022

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8974 of 2022 Applicant :- Rahul Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava,Sheshadri Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bharat Singh,Deepak Dubey Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶4

Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsels for the applicant; Sri Deepak Dubey and Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsels for the informant and the learned A.G.A.

¶5

This is second bail application of the applicant.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Rahul Pratap Singh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 853 of 2021, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 302, 325 IPC, Police Station- Majhola, District- Moradabad, pendency of trial.

¶7

The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to move fresh application by a coordinate bench on 04.01.2022. Hence, this application has been moved and placed before this Court since the coordinate Bench which has passed the earlier order is not available now. Even otherwise the first bail application was dismissed as not pressed and was not argued on merits.

¶8

There is allegation in the FIR that the applicant indulged in the offence of rioting by forming an unlawful assembly and caused injuries to the injured-informant who has subsequently died.

¶9

2

¶10

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that during investigation and prior to his death, the statement of the deceased, Deepak Kumar, was recorded by the investigating officer but he did not assigned any specific role to the applicant in the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The injured had stated that the firing was made from behind and therefore he has not seen who caused gunshot injury, out of the three named accused in the FIR. He had also implicated two unknown accused persons who were involved in the alleged offence.

¶11

It has further been submitted that Mohit who was accompanying the deceased at the time of alleged incident has also not assigned any specific role to the applicant. The deceased died on account of shock and septicaemia following ante-mortem gunshot injury. The applicant is a practicing lawyer and a member of Bar Association and Library, Moradabad. The applicant had enmity with the deceased. The injured stated in his statement that gunshot was fired which hit from his backside when the injuries have been sustained by him on chest. Blackening and tattooing is also present around the injuries of the deceased. The applicant has criminal history of eight cases explained in paragraph 16 of the affidavit in support of the bail application. He is in jail since 03.10.2021.

¶12

Counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A have vehemently opposed the bail application of the applicant. They have stated that in the FIR it is not stated that the applicant and co-accused persons fired on the deceased from backside with common intention to kill. In the statement of the deceased, this fact has been wrongly recorded. The deceased suffered eight injuries since he was attacked by three named and two unnamed accused persons. Injuries have been caused on his vital part. The implication of the applicant is under 149 IPC also and therefore there is no need of any specific role of the applicant. The Apex Court in the case of Munnawar and others vs. State of U.P. and others (2010) 5 SCC 451, has

¶13

3

¶14

held that lack of proper treatment cannot be a ground for granting bail to an accused. The applicant has previous criminal history of 8 cases which also disentitles him to grant of liberty at bail at this stage.

¶15

After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that there are clear allegations against the applicant and other co-accused of causing 8 injuries to the injured. Since three named accused and two unnamed accused persons formed unlawful assembly for causing the murder of the deceased and allegations of commission of offence has been made against all the accused in the statement of the deceased, specific role or any overt act on their part is not relevant. Presence in the unlawful assembly with common object is sufficient for implication of applicant as held by the the Apex Court in the case of Manno Lal Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2022 (119) ACC 251 and Kumer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2021 (117) ACC 609. Where accused is charged of committing offence punishable under Section 149 I.P.C., his presence stands established in unlawful assembly. Overt act or individual role by an accused is not significant and relevant.

¶16

The applicant has not made out any good ground for grant of bail. The bail application of the applicant is accordingly rejected at this stage.

¶17

The trial court is expected to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within period of one year.

¶18

Order Date :- 13.09.2022 Rohit

¶19

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.09.15 09:43:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Kumar Pal Vs State of U.P.

Satish Kesarwani Vs State of U.P.

Gyanendra @ Sonu Vs State of Up

Sushila Devi Vs State of U.P.

Bhura @ Zainuddin @ Sahil Vs State of U.P.

Vindesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.