Allowed

Ajab Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2023BAIL/30896/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous bail application was allowed. The High Court held that the applicants had made out a case for bail, considering the length of custody and pending trial, without expressing an opinion on the merits. Bail was granted with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties each with conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:169390

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30896 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ajab Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Lal,Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 106 of 2020, under Sections 307 I.P.C., Police Station Sunngarhi, District Kasganj, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicants alongwith two other co-accused persons are stated to have fired at the son of the informant on 29.10.2020 at about 2.00 pm thereby causing gunshot injuries to his left leg when he was busy in the field easing himself out.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize them. Learned counsel has next stated that the co-accused persons Munna Lal and Sawar Singh have been enlarged on bail vide order dated 26.6.2023 passed in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25672 of 2023. It is next stated that there are general allegations against all the accused persons. Even in the FIR, it has been stated that firing done by the applicant no. 1- Ajab Singh did not hit the injured person. It is further stated that the injured person has not been examined as the investigating officer has categorically stated that he (the injured person) was not available as he had gone all the way to Gujarat. Learned counsel has next stated that the closure report was filed in the case, but at the stage of taking cognizance, the said closure report was rejected and the applicants have been summoned.

¶11

Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgement passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 712 it has been held as follows:-

¶12

"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail.

¶13

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. The criminal history of the applicant no. 1 stands explained as the offence mentioned thereat are bailable. The applicant no. 2 has no criminal history. The applicant nos. 1 and 2 are languishing in jail since 23.5.2023 and 5.6.2023. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused applicants, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicants- Ajab Singh and Ashish Kumar, involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶17

i. The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. iii. The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

iv. The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

v. The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,

¶20

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.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶25

Order Date :- 23.8.2023 Shalini

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajab Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajab Singh and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surjeet and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Imran and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Banarasi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aditya Kumar Mishra @ Shiv Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash Verma and Another Vs State of U.P.

Babita Kesarwani Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others