Allowed

Tekai Singh @ Bhuependra Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 May 2022BAIL/9185/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court considered a prayer under Section 439 CrPC for the release of an applicant charged under Sections 304, 323, and 504 IPC. Examining factors such as injuries sustained by co-accused and lack of incriminating articles, the court allowed bail subject to conditions and a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions regarding presence in court and non-interference with witnesses.

Tekai Singh @ Bhuependra Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9185 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Tekai Singh @ Bhuependra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Dharmendra Sengar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Satya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Tekai Singh @ Bhuependra Singh under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 228 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 304 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Belghat, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of the trial after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Gorakhpur, vide order dated 15.2.2022.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 12.11.2021 has been lodged at 10:14 hours by the brother of the deceased Gorakhnath against the applicant, one Sunny Singh and other unknown persons under Sections 323, 504, 304 at police station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar stating that on 11.11.2021 at about 8:00 P.M., brother of the first informant and one Sunny Singh along with other two coaccused persons started hurling abuses and scuffling with his brother and beaten him by kicks and fists as well as by lathi and danda. Upon hearing noise, the first informant reached at the spot and tried to save his brother. After that the assailants and Sunny Singh took away the brother of the first informant by motorcyle near the Auradhat pond and left him there in unconscious state. The first informant with the help of other persons took the injured to CHC, Haiser Bazar, Malauli where during, he was declared dead.

¶9

Before lodging of the first information report, proceedings of inquest of the body of the deceased has been conducted on 12.11.2021 at 10:10 A.M. at CHC Haiser Bazar, Malauli. The first information report of the present case has been lodged on

¶10

12.11.2021 at 10:14 A.M. Post-mortem of the body of the deceased was also conducted 12.11.2021 at 12:28 P.M. As per post-mortem report, two contused swelling were found on the fore-head of the deceased and one contused swelling was found on posterior head and one abrasion on head was also found below chin. After recording the statements of the first informant and independent witnesses, Bablu Singh @ Pradip Singh, Umesh Singh, Saurabh Rai, Jitendra Singh, Om prakash and Harish Singh, charge-sheet has been submitted against named co-accused Sunny Singh, applicant and one Satyam Singh @ Nikku on 8.1.2022. The applicant was arrested on 13.11.2021.

¶11

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant is not named in the FIR. It is further argued that the first informant report has been lodged at police station Dhanghata, district Sant Kabir Nagar but the investigation of the same has been transferred to police station Belghat, district Gorkhpur. It is further argued that no incident has taken place near the liquor shop at 8:00 P.M. on 11.11.2021. It is further argued that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and stated that the deceased has received injuries and fell down from motor-cycle after the incident. It is further argued that as per medical report of the Sunny @ Sandeep Singh, applicant and Satyam Singh @ Nikku have also received injuries, which is conducted on 13.11.2021 at 3:35 P.M., 3:45 P.M. and 3:55 P.M. respectively. It is further argued that the applicant has also received injuries of lacerated wound on his right little finger and two abrasions also. It is further argued that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. It is further argued that the prosecution has not explained the injuries as sustained by the accused persons. It is further argued that the broken hockey stick has been recovered on pointing out of co-accused Sunny @ Sandeep Singh. He next submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.11.2021 having no criminal history. It is lastly submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra , learned AGA has supported the order passed by the Sessions Court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and he further submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But, he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

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

¶14

(a) The applicant is not named in the FIR;

¶15

(b) The first information report has been lodged at police station Dhanghata, district Sant Kabir Nagar but the charge-sheet has been submitted by the police station Bhelghat, District Gorakhpur;

¶16

(c) The applicant and other co-accused persons namely Sunny @ Sandeep Singh and Satyam Singh @ Nikku have also sustained injuries;

¶17

(d) No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of the applicant;

¶18

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.

¶19

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 .

¶20

Let applicant, Tekai Singh @ Bhuependra Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

Order Date :- 9.5.2022 CS/-

¶33

Digitally signed by CHANDAN SINGH Date: 2022.05.10 11:27:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tekai Singh @ Bhuependra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tekai Singh @ Bhuependra 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

Braham Jeet Vs State of U.P.

Udham Singh Saini and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Saleeman and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashwani Kumar Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and 3 Others

Anamika Ganguli Rastogi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Rajansri Vs State of U.P.