Allowed

Abhishek Singh @ Honey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023BAIL/6603/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal bail application was filed by an accused characterised as a conspirator in a murder case involving suspension of a driver. Relying on the conclusiveness of the charge sheet and Supreme Court precedents regarding bail for accused with criminal history, the High Court allowed the application, releasing the applicant on bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.

Abhishek Singh @ Honey Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171285

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6603 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Abhishek Singh @ Honey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Singh,Syed Imran Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Supplementary afÏdavit filed by the learned counsel for applicant in Court today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶8

This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Abhishek Singh @ Honey seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.145 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B, 216-A, 34 IPC, Police Station Jaitpura, District Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Record shows that bail applications of seven accused were decided by this Court by a detailed common order dated 27.05.2022 passed in leading Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.51806 of 2021 (Ravi Pratap Singh @ Sammi Vs. State of U.P.). In paragraph 34 of the aforesaid order, the Court has categorically characterized two sets of accused (a) conspirator; and (b) whose presence was found on the spot. As per recital contained in paragraph 34 of the aforesaid order, the applicant is a conspirator of the crime. For ready reference, paragraph 34 of the order is extracted hereinunder :-

¶10

"34. On the basis of above, the charge-sheeted accused can be easily divided in two broad categories. One set of accused are the conspirators of the crime namely Shaswat Singh, Prabhakar Upadhyay, Vishal Singh, Naveen @ Ayush, Raja babu Vishwakarma, Abhinav Singh, Abhishek Singh @ Hani and the other set of accused is that of assailants and their companions, whose presence was found at the time and place of occurrence i.e. Manish Singh @ Sonu (role of shooting), Vivek Singh Katta (role of shooting), Ravi Pratap Singh @ Sammi (Driver of Swift Car), Hemant Singh (Co-passenger in Swift Car), (Co-passenger in swift car) Vijendra Singh @ Babbu (Driver of Splendor Motorcycle), Atul Vishwakarma (Driver of Apache Motorcycle)."

¶11

According to the learned counsel for applicant conspiracy is a closed door affair and, therefore, subject to trial evidence. It is then contended that applicant has criminal history of 36 cases. However, the same has been duly explained in the afÏdavit filed in support of the application for bail. On the above premise, the learned counsel contends that applicant is

¶12

liable to enlarged on bail. The applicant is in jail since 16.10.2020. As such he has undergone more than two years and ten months of incarceration. It is further contended that the police report in terms of Section 173(2) CrPC has already been submitted. Therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He, therefore, submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶13

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named/charge-sheeted accused, therefore, no indulgence be granted by this Court in his favour. During the course of investigation, Investigating OfÏcer recovered call detail reports (CDR) of various accused and from the said material it was discovered that applicant has indulged in continuous dialogue with other co-accused. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that complicity of applicant is fully established in the crime in question. The criminality committed by named/charge-sheeted accused is joint and common therefore incapable of being separated and segregated. As such, no exception can be carved out in the case of applicant. On the above conspectus, it is thus urged that no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant.

¶14

In rejoinder, the learned counsel for applicant rejoined his earlier submissions. Reliance has been placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2020) 11 SCC 648 and on basis whereof it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant that even in the aforementioned case the accused had criminal history yet he was enlarged on bail. The bail order was maintained by the Supreme Court also. He, therefore, contends that applicant cannot be denied bail simply on the ground of criminal history. It is further contended that in all 36 other cases pending against him and he has already been enlarged on bail in 35 cases. The applicant is in custody only in a case under the U.P. Gangsters Act. According to the learned counsel for applicant, it is an admitted fact that at the time of occurrence, applicant was under incarceration and was detained in District Jail, Baghpat. On the above premise, he submits that applicant is liable to enlarged on bail.

¶15

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made, nature

¶16

and gravity of offence and coupled with the fact that as per paragraph 34 of the order of this Court dated 27.05.2022, the role of the applicant is that of conspirator, conspiracy is a closed door affair therefore the same is subject to trial evidence, it is an admitted fact that at the time of occurrence the applicant was under detention and was lodged in District Jail, Baghat, the applicant has criminal history of 36 cases however he has been enlarged on bail in 35 criminal cases, the only case in which the applicant is in custody is under the provisions of U.P. Gangster Act which has been invoked against the applicant on account of the present case crime number giving rise to this application for bail, the judgement of the Supreme Court in Brijmani Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar and Another (2022) 4 SCC 497 , the police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC i.e. charge-sheet has already been submitted therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized, however the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the course of trial but, without making any comments on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant Abhishek Singh @ Honey be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C.

¶21

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails 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 I.P.C.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the

¶23

trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 sufÏcient 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.

¶24

(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶25

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶26

Order Date :- 24.8.2023. Rks.

¶27

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

Abhishek Singh @ Honey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Singh @ Honey 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

M/S. Sophisticated Industrial Materials Vs M/S. U.P. State Industrial Development Authority and Another

Aman Singh Vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Yadav @ Kandu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek @ Rahul Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Danveer Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others