Dismissed

Vaibhab Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 May 2023BAIL/45127/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a bail application filed by Vaibhab Singh, less satisfied that any case for bail was made out due to the gravity of the murder allegations. The court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial within four months.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. Trial court directed to complete trial within four months of presentation of certified copy of this order.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:109008

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45127 of 2018

¶4

Applicant :- Vaibhab Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh,Brijesh Sahai,Pradeep Kumar Singh,Rakesh Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Tripathi,Ankit Kumar Mishra,Atul Kumar Shahi,Sheshadri Trivedi,Vikrant Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No.116 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 302 IPC, Police Station Cantt., DistrictGorakhpur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶8

It is submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is also submitted that during trial, three prosecution witnesses have been examined and seven witnesses who are named in the charge-sheet are yet to be examined. It is further submitted that no motive has been assigned to the applicant to commit the murder of the deceased, Saurabh Pandey. So far as the recovery of the incriminating article from the pointing out of the applicant is concerned, a countrymade pistol of 0.315 bore was falsely recovered and no F.S.L. report is available on record which can corroborate that the said weapon was used by the applicant in the commission of crime. He also submitted that according to prosecution version the deceased was shot 4-5 times but according to postmortem report of the deceased,

¶9

Saurabh Pandey, there are only two fire arm injuries on the person of the deceased which belies the prosecution version. He further submitted that there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the trial in the near future, therefore, considering the period of detention of the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 07.03.2017 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶10

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that the first shot was fired by the applicant and then by the co-accused, Vicky Yadav. The postmortem report of the deceased, Saurabh Pandey corroborates the prosecution version. The C.C.T.V. footage in which whole incident was covered, has been presented before the trial Court. He also submitted that it is the applicant and other co-accused who are delaying in the trial since they did not cross-examine the witnesses for a long time, therefore, there is no latches on the part of the prosecution in the trial. He further submitted that the bail of the co-accused, Vicky Yadav has been rejected by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.03.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5744 of 2018. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to enlarge on bail.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations and gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby rejected .

¶12

Any observation made above shall not be treated as any finding

¶13

on the merit and shall not prejudice the trial.

¶14

Since the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.03.2017 and the prosecution of evidence stands concluded and thereafter statement of the co-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have been recorded, therefore, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it within four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of the order of this Court subject to full cooperation by the applicant/ accused.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.5.2023

¶16

SP/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vaibhab Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhab Singh 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

Abhishek Vs State of U.P.

Om Kumar @ Gyasi Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Vs State of U.P.

Avneesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akash Bihari Vs State of U.P.

Lokesh @ Pati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others