Allowed

Ganpati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2023BAIL/26054/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench order allowing multiple bail applications filed by four accused in an affray/corporate offence case resulting in murder. The court granted bail on condition of personal bond and sureties, relying on the parity of cases with other co-accused already released.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties each.

Ganpati Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:153950

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26054 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ganpati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi,Gaurav Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kiran Tiwari,Mahesh Chandra Tiwari and Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20272 of 2023

¶5

Applicant :- Sunna @ Soran Singh @ Sobaran Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi,Saurabh Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kiran Tiwari,Mahesh Chandra Tiwari and

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26122 of 2023

¶7

Applicant :- Nehne Ram @ Nanhe Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi,Saurabh Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kiran Tiwari,Mahesh Chandra Tiwari

¶8

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶9

Heard Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Mahesh

¶10

Chandra Tiwari, the learned counsel for first informant.

¶11

2. Perused the Court.

¶12

These applications for bail have been filed by applicantsGanpati, Sunna @ Soran Singh @ Sobaran Singh as well as Mewa Ram and Nehne Ram @ Nanhe seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 211 of 2022 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, 506, 304, 325 I.P.C., Police Station-Iradatnagar, District- Agra during the pendency of trial.

¶13

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 25.12.2022, a prompt F.I.R. dated 25.12.2022, was lodged by first informant-Srishyam Sundar and was registered as Case Crime No. 211 of 2022 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Iradatnagar, District- Agra. In the aforesaid F. I.R., nine persons namely Nanhe Ram (applicant herein), Srikant, Chandra Kant, Krishna, Mewaram (applicant herein), Ganpati (applicant herein) Papoo, Sunna @ Soran Singh (applicant herein) and Mahesh have been nominated as named accused. 5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused with a common object assaulted various persons from the side of first informant on account of which Shiv Singh, Balveer, Kirat Singh, Pooran Singh, Chhiddmi Lal, Ram Lakhan sustained injuries. The F.I.R. further records that two of the named accused Shiv Singh and Balveer Singh sustained head injury. Subsequently, Shiv Singh succumbed to the injury sustained by him. Ultimately,

¶14

post-mortem of the body of deceased Shiv Singh was conducted. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of deceased was opined as comma as a result of antemortem hanging. The Autopsy Surgion found following antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased:

¶15

I. Stitch wound 19 cm long present over frontal, parietal and temporal region of skull.

¶16

II. Tracheostomy mark present.

¶17

III. Stich wound 9 cm long present over right abdomen with frontal, parietal and temporal bone present in abdominal muscle.

¶18

IV. Frontal, parietal and temporal bone fracture. Vv. Hemotoma present in brain.

¶19

Injury reports of the other injured have been brought on record as Annexure 3 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

¶20

In respect of the same incident an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed from the side of co-accused before concerned Magistrate, which was allowed vide order dated 20.03.2023. The application was accordingly treated as a complaint.

¶21

Learned counsel for applicant contends that out of nine named accused, five named accused have already enlarged on bail, the details of the same are as under:

¶22

i. Co accused Krishn @ Krishan and Pappu @ Janak Singh have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.03.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12534 of 2023 (Krishn @ Krishna and another Vs. State of U.P.).

¶23

ii. Co accused Shrikan and another have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18209of 2023 (Shrikant and another Vs. State of U.P.).

¶24

iii. Co accused Mahesh has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 18.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.19994 of 2023 (Mahesh Vs. State of U.P.).

¶25

On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants contends that the case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of named and charge-sheeted but bailed out co-accused as noted above. He also contends that there is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicants can be so distinguished from the aforesaid bailed out co-accused so as to deny them bail. On the basis of above, the learned counsel for applicant contends that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail orders of co-accused as mentioned above, applicants are also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶26

It is next contended by the learned counsel for applicants that in the incident giving rise to present criminal proceedings, six persons from the side of first informant have also sustained injury out of which Shiv Singh subsequently died. However, upto this stage author of the injury sustained by the deceased has not yet been identified in the statements of witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He therefore contends that general allegations have been made against applicants/named accused.

¶27

According to the learned counsel for applicant since there

¶28

are cross version in respect of same occurrence, therefore, occurrence is admitted to the facts. In the same incident four persons from the side of accused have also sustained injury. On the above premise, he therefore contends that prima-facie the issue to be decided by court below is " as to who is the aggressor". However, as per material collected by Investigating Officer, it cannot be conclusively concluded as to who is the aggressor and therefore, the same is subject to trial evidence. Applicant Ganpati is in custody since 28.12.2022. Applicants Sunna @ Soran Singh @ Sobraran and Chhote Lal are in custody since 26.12.2022. Applicant Nehne Ram @ Nanhe is in custody since 07.01.2023. As such, they has under-gone more than seven months of incarceration. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. Therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. Upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He therefore contends that applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶29

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Mahesh Chandra Tiwari, the learned counsel for first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since the applicants are named as well as charge-sheet accused, therefore they do not deserve any indulgence by this

¶30

Court. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record at this stage.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicants coupled with the fact that similarly situated named/charge-sheeted accused have already been enlarged on bail, the learned A.G.A. as well as the learned counsel representing first informant could not distinguish the case of present applicants from bailed out named accused/charge-sheeted accused to deny them bail and also the submissions urged by learned counsel for applicants as noted above including the clean antecedents of applicants and the period of incarceration undergone but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicants have made out a case for bail.

¶32

Accordingly, present bail applications are allowed .

¶33

Let the applicants -Ganpati, Sunna @ Soran Singh @ Sobaran Singh, Mewa Ram and Nehne Ram @ Nanhe involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond each and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶34

(i) Applicants will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶35

(ii) Applicants will abide the orders of court, will attend the

¶36

court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶37

(iii) Applicants will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶38

(iv) Applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶39

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicants and send them to prison.

¶40

Order Date :- 2.8.2023 YK

¶41

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

Ganpati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpati 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Karunesh Sharma vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Chandra Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Sushil Kumar Singh @ Sonu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sunita Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Manoj Kashyap Vs State of U.P.