Sunil Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6487 of 2022

Applicant :- Sunil Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajneesh Tripathi,Mukesh Kumar,Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Dubey

¶4

with

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7737 of 2022

¶6

Applicant :- Kaushlendra Singh @ Pintu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Dubey

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Satya Prakash Tiwari and Mrs. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party alongwith Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

These anticipatory bail applications (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) have been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.175 of 2022, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 304 I.P.C., Police Station Bewar, District Mainpuri, during the pendency of investigation/trial.

¶10

Facts in brief are that on 23.06.2022 at about 2:00 A.M. brother of the informant namely Lavi Shukla went to Sumer City Hotel (Mall) Gagarpur Nagar Pul Bewar at the instance of phone call made by Sunil and Kuashlendra. These persons involved/dragged the brother of the informant in gambling with other persons those are co-accused. On the same day at about 9:30 P.M. in the night, information from the police station was given to the other brother of informant Lucky on phone call that his brother Lavi (deceased) was serious and admitted in Bewar Hospital. Thereafter, they reached to the hospital and came to know that deceased was referred to District Hospital Mainpuri from where he was taken to the Rainbow Hospital, Agra on the same day having injuries on his head, legs regarding which he was operated by the doctors and was struggling for life. Further

¶11

the deceased was beaten by these applicants with other coaccused persons regarding dispute related to gambling. The F.I.R. was lodged u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 I.P.C. on 01.07.2022 but later on the injured/deceased Lavi Shukla died during treatment and matter was converted u/s 304 I.P.C. On the same day an F.I.R. was lodged by the police as Crime No.163 of 2022 on 24.06.2022 at 1:26 A.M. u/s 13 Gambling Act against these applicants and three other co-accused persons regarding gambling and recovery of money from that place and the accused persons were arrested by the police on 11:30 P.M. in the night on 23.06.2022.

¶12

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and have committed no offence and they have not made any assault on the deceased. It is also submitted that on the same date the police lodged an F.I.R. against the applicants and other co-accused persons for gambling at about 11:30 P.M. in the night where the deceased was also present. When all of the accused persons were caught by the police injuries were caused to the deceased by police personnel and for avoiding themselves from the liability they threw the deceased from the roof on the ground as a result he sustained those injuries found on his person. Again for avoiding themselves from the liability the police personnel lodged the F.I.R. against five accused persons including these applicants but left the name of the deceased from the F.I.R. It is also submitted that the deceased sustained injuries in a road accident as per the admission slip of the hospital and throughout the treatment the injuries were supposed to be caused in road accident. Even at the time of inquest it was found that those injuries were caused in road accident. In this way, the incident was not caused by these applicants but it was as a result of road accident. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged on 01.07.2022 after 7 days of delay without any explanation against these applicants alongwith other co-accused persons. The informant was not an eye-witness and he had not seen the incident. Even during postmortem the injuries found on the person of the deceased indicate that those injuries were sustained by falling on the ground from the roof when deceased was chased by the police personnel at the time of gambling. It is further submitted that the witnesses those are said to have seen the incident were Dipanshu and Chandan but they have not seen the incident themselves but only on the basis of information received by them they have made the statement. There is no any other evidence on record to show the complicity of these applicants in causing injuries to the deceased. Since the investigation is going on, therefore, the applicants are under apprehension of imminent arrest. In case, the applicants are released on bail,

¶13

they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the investigation.

¶14

Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and urged that in this case the injuries were caused to the deceased by these applicants alongwith other co-accused persons. The applicant Sunil Kumar is owner of the Hotel in question where gambling was being made on the date of incident. It is also urged that the deceased was caused injuries by these applicants in relation to the dispute of gambling and was laid on the road. When the information regarding this fact was given to the brother of the deceased he came on the place of incident and found his brother admitted in the hospital from where he was taken to Rainbow Hospital, Agra. The treatment of the injured/deceased was foremost, therefore, he would not lodged the F.I.R. immediately but he was busy in course of the treatment of the deceased that was the reason F.I.R. was lodged after delay. The incident was not happened in road accident but the injuries were caused by these applicants with other co-accused persons. Even at the time of inquest the opinion of panchan was recorded by the S.I. in which they found that the death of the deceased was caused as a result of antemortem injuries on his person and they never asserted the fact that deceased was died on account of road accident. Even during post-mortem several injuries were found on the head of the deceased and parts of the body which indicate that the injuries were not sustained by the deceased on account of falling from the roof during the course of chase made by the police or were not sustained in road accident. It is further urged that the applicants Sunil Pal filed an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court of learned C.J.M. as Application No.345 of 2022 on 07.07.2022 alleging that the deceased was present at Sumer Marriage Hall owned by Sunil Pal and on 23.06.2022 at about 8:11 P.M. in the night in Sumer City Mall adjacent to the Marriage Hall the police force came there and arrested him with co-accused Kuashlenra, Manoj Gupta, Amrendra Singh @ Ramu, Sunil Pal, Pankaj @ Vikas, Arvind Kumar and when deceased Lavi Shukla tried to flee away after seeing the police, police also chased him and by making assault with iron rod to the deceased threw him from the roof. This incident was seen by Hari Prasad, Goving Singh, Mahendra Singh when hue and cry was made by the people. Police released them on person bonds. This story as concocted by the applicant Sunil Pal, was not accepted by the learned court and application was rejected. It is also urged that the applicants moved an application to S.S.P. and D.G.P. on 09.07.2022 alleging the aforesaid facts regarding death of the deceased Lavi Shukla to be caused by the police at the time of

¶15

chasing him. These versions made by learned counsel for the applicant Sunil Pal in these applications moved to authorities clearly indicate that the deceased was present at the Sumer City Mall where this incident took place and deceased was assaulted and caused injuries brutally by these applicant and other coaccused persons as a result he died. In this way, the story as placed by the applicants before this Court regarding the incident to have taken place in road accident becomes false.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, perusal of record and without making any comment on the merit of the case, there is no ground to grant anticipatory bail in favour of these applicants.

¶17

Accordingly, these anticipatory bail applications are, hereby, rejected.

¶18

Order Date :- 20.1.2023 Ashok Gupta

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Ramjeet @ Ramshree Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kaushlendra Singh @ Pintu Vs State of U.P.

Ram Jatan @ Koli and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another