This judgment rejects a second bail application filed by Roshan Singh in a murder case involving sections 302 and 147 IPC. The Court found no fit case for bail due to the gravity of the offence, despite arguments regarding witness contradictions and false recovery.
Bail application rejected; Trial directed to conclude within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:105290
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14148 of 2021
Applicant :- Roshan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradip Kumar Singh,Abhinav Prasad,Rajeev Nayan Singh,Renu Singh,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Adarsh Bhushan,A0107/2012
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the informant and perused the entire record.
This is second bail application moved on behalf of applicant as the first bail application being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15623 of 2020 has been rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh-I (since retired) vide order dated 05.08.2020.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 299 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 307, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. It is submitted that while passing the order on first bail application moved by the applicant it was observed that Bhunesh Kumar has clearly stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that accused-applicant snatched the carbine from his gunner and has made five rounds of fires upon the deceased by which deceased fell down. In view of this observation it is submitted that the alleged eye witness Bhunesh Kumar was examined as prosecution witness during the trial
and he made no allegation against the present applicant rather he stated that neither he new any accused by his name nor recognize them by their face. He did not saw any of the accused attacking the deceased. His statement was recorded by the Investigating OfÏcer, therefore, the allegations against the applicant are not corroborated by the evidence of such witness. It is also submitted that a false recovery of ' danda ' on pointing out of applicant as well as co-accused Rahul is shown on 27.06.2019. Co-accused Rahul has been granted bail by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 07.01.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53390 of 2019. It is also submitted that P.W.1-Rajan Singh, in his cross examination has stated that Saurabh Singh informed him about the enmity with Roshan Singh when he was in jail and prior to this he was not known to present applicant Roshan Singh, so he did not mention the name of any accused in the first information report. It is also submitted that P.W.3-Prashant Singh is not the injured witness while the injured Bhunesh Kumar has not corroborated the prosecution version. Prashant Singh is alleged to be the eye witness of the occurrence. It is also stated three witnesses have been examined. Learned counsel for applicant lastly submits that applicant is in jail since 13.06.2019 and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. The recovery from the possession of applicant does not corroborate the injury sustained by the deceased or the injured persons.
Per contra learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that if a witness turns hostile entire prosecution story cannot be disbelieved. P.W.3, who is the eye witness in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. has corroborated the prosecution version and in his deposition before the trial court he specifically stated that in his presence applicant Roshan Singh made indiscriminate firing to the deceased Saurabh Singh with the carbine of his gunner. It is further submitted that injured Bhunesh Kumar sustained one injury while injured Rajan Singh has sustained inasmuch as thirteen injuries and
deceased had sustained ten injuries, out of which, eight were caused by firearm. It is further submitted that so far as the bail order of coaccused are concerned, the role of present applicant is distinguishable. It is also submitted that prior to this incident deceased Saurabh Singh has committed the murder of uncle of present applicant, therefore, applicant had enmity with Saurabh Singh. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that on 11.11.2020 the present applicant has moved an application for discharge from the offence which was decided by the court below vide order dated 02.01.2021. Three witnesses of fact have been recorded.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for applicant as well as learned A.G.A., gravity of offence and severity of punishment, I do not find a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application of applicant, Roshan Singh , is hereby rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to make every endeavour to to conclude the trial, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order keeping in view the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 12.5.2023 Prajapati
Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the gravity of the offence and severity of punishment preclude the grant of bail to the applicant.
Whether the contradiction in prosecution witness statements entitles the applicant to bail.
Roshan Singh
State of U.P.
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
