Allowed

Sappu Guraj @ Ankush v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023BAIL/4244/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to an under-trial applicant charged with murder despite opposition from the informant and State. The court considered jail overcrowding, the uncertainty of trial, and imposed strict conditions including prohibitions on adjournments and tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties, with strict conditions regarding presence, non-tampering with witnesses, and attendance at scheduled hearings.

Sappu Guraj @ Ankush Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:184963 Reserved on 21.9.2023 Delivered on 25.9.2023

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4244 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sappu Guraj @ Ankush Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Afzal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sappu Guraj @ Ankush, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 668 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B and 34 IPC, Police Station Modi Nagar, District- Ghaziabad, during pendency of trial.

¶7

There is allegation in the FIR that on 24.8.2020 at about 19:20 hours, son of the informant, Akshay, was called by co-accused, Ashwani and started taking to him in lane behind his house. Accused persons, namely, Vikas, Sappu Guraj, the applicant, Amit @ Chuhia, Aditya @ Vasu, accompanied him in an I-10 car and with common intention caused indiscriminate firing on his son, Akshay and caused his murder. His dead body was kept in mortuary. The informant stated that he has firm belief that co-accused, Smt. Rubi, w/o Vikas, Dr. Devendra Shiwach and Ashish had entered into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused and caused the alleged offence.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that statement of the first informant was recorded on 25.8.2020 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but he did not named the applicant as an assailant. The statements of the witnesses, namely, Master Rajpal, Smt. Mehandri and also Shubham were recorded, but they did not named the applicant. The applicant was in Mandauli Jail in Delhi in connection with Case Crime No. 118 of 2020, under Sections 25, 54, 59 Arms Act and was summoned on B warrant by Ghaziabad court. After the incident, on 28.8.2020 the other witnesses, whose statements were recorded, did named the applicant. He has submitted that mother of the deceased has lodged the FIR against the applicant by way of proceeding under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police

¶9

Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad and in the present case, the applicant has been implicated by way of counter blast. The applicant is an political person and his wife is Corporator in Municipal Corporation, Modi Nagar. He has criminal history of two cases explained in paragraph Nos. 18 and 19 of the affidavit in support of the bail application. He was not seen in the CCTV footage since he is in jail since 25.8.2020.

¶10

Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and has not disputed that the applicant was not in jail at the time of alleged offence, but he has alleged that applicant himself went inside the jail on 18.8.2020 and the present incident was caused on 24.8.2020 in pursuance of conspiracy hatched by the applicant alongwith other co-accused, namely, Rubi and Aruna. He has submitted that the applicant posted a facebook post from jail before the murder of Akshay on 24.8.2020, which clearly points out that he had hatched the conspiracy for commission of alleged offence from jail. Criminal history of the applicant consisting 15 cases has been brought on record by learned counsel for the informant by way of counter affidavit. He has submitted that there is prior enmity between the applicant and deceased, Akshay and he was attacked by the applicant and other co-accused, Vikas, Vicky, Prathan, etc., in the year 2019 and case crime no.511 of 2019, under sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 is pending. He has submitted that it is clear that applicant had motive and role in the alleged offence. Hence he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

After hearing rival contentions, this Court finds that co-accused, Rubi, has been enlarged on bail, who was also assigned the role of conspirator. Criminal history of 12 cases of the applicant has been explained in supplementary affidavit. He is in jail since last more than three years. Trial has begun. Four prosecution witnesses have been examined. Some of the co-accused have been enlarged on bail by this Court on the ground that they have not been implicated by the informant and other witnesses before the trial court. However regarding the applicant, PW-4, who is mother of the deceased, has been

¶13

2 of 4

¶14

examined before the trial court and has assigned the clear role of hatching conspiracy to the applicant in the incident only.

¶15

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶17

(ii) 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 Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(v) 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

3 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year.

¶25

The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned within 10 days.

¶26

Order Date :- 25.9.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶27

4 of 4

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sappu Guraj @ Ankush v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sappu Guraj @ Ankush 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

Ram Pravesh Vs State of U.P.

Bachchoo Mandal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajendra Singh Gurjar Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Giri Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Kanojia @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others