Allowed

Aditya Singh Alias Major v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024/3918/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, in the fourth hearing regarding the applicant's bail, held that since material eye-witnesses had been examined, the applicant had been in custody for over three years, and no valid apprehension of flight existed, he was entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties in the like amount, subject to strict conditions.

Aditya Singh Alias Major Vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 8

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3918 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Aditya Singh Alias Major Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Kumar Singh,Rishi Raj Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sheo Prakash Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Sheo Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and Shri Vishwas Saraswat, learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.

¶6

This is the third bail application moved by the applicant who is arraigned in Case Crime No.406 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B, 188 IPC and Sections 3, 25, 27 Arms Act, relating to Police Station Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh.

¶7

It has been pointed out that initially by means of order dated 21.10.2021, the first bail application of the present applicant bearing No.11719 of 2021 was allowed by this Court. Since the sole basis for granting the bail application was the bail granted to another co-accused, namely, Rahul alias Monu Tiwari. In the case of Rahul alias Monu Tiwari, his bail which was granted by the High Court had been set aside and cancelled by the Apex Court, accordingly by means of order dated 17.05.2022 the bail order of the present applicant too was also set aside. Subsequently, the applicant filed the second bail application which was again considered by this Court and by means of order dated 21.04.2023 the same was rejected.

¶8

It has further been urged that at the time of rejection of the second bail application, certain observations were made by this Court contained in paragraph 35 of the bail application and it is in this regard, it is urged that there have been change in

¶9

circumstances in which this third application for bail has been moved.

¶10

The primary contention while pressing the third bail application is that despite five orders passed by the respective Benches of this Court expediting the trial, it has yet not concluded.

¶11

It has further been urged that the applicant has been in jail since 17.06.2021 apart from the fact that the main witnesses of fact have already been examined and formal witnesses are under examination in the trial. In such circumstances where the role of the applicant is quite different coupled with the fact that bail application of other co-accused, namely, Anand Tiwari, Chandrabhal Tripathi, Amrish Mishra, Ravi Mishra, Amit Raja, Ashok Kumar, Ravi Singh and Vinok Kumar Yadav have been granted by the High Court. Even in the case of the two other co-accused, namely, Sarvesh Tiwari and Raj Kumar Maurya who were granted bail by the High Court but their bail orders have been assailed before the Apex Court where notices have been issued but there is no order either staying the operation or rejecting the bail orders.

¶12

It has also been pointed out that in so far as another co-accused Anand Tiwari is concerned, his bail order was assailed before the Apex Court which came to be dismissed by means of order dated 03.05.2024. It is thus urged that in the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant is also entitled to bail as the other co-accused having similar roles have been granted bail.

¶13

Shri Sheo Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application and has submitted that in so far as the present applicant is concerned, there is a clear assertion that he alongwith another co-accused Monu Tiwari had snatched the licenced pistol while exhorting others to finish the deceased which escalated the intensity of the scufÒe wherein the brother of the complainant died.

¶14

It has further been pointed out that even from the perusal of the statement of the complainant which has been brought on record as annexure

¶15

no.8, there is a clear assertion that one Anjani Shukla alias Radhey with his double barrel gun had fired at his brother Ram Prasad Pandey as a result he sustained bullet injuries in his chest and other parts of the body. It is thus urged that in such circumstances the applicant is not entitled to bail.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has submitted that even if the observations made by the Court as contained in paragraph 35 of the order by which the second bail application was rejected is seen even that indicates that the liberty was granted to move a fresh application if the eye witnesses etc. have been examined but it is not so.

¶17

A report from the Incharge Inspector, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh has been provided wherein it has been indicated that ten witnesses have been examined inter alia it includes the investigating ofÏcer and doctors who have been examined. The report further indicates that the prosecution had submitted a trial programme where they had mentioned six witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 6 which includes Laxman Prasad Pandey and Subhendramani Tiwari who are the injured witnesses, the scribe of the FIR as P.W.3, Sub Inspector who was the witness of the Panchayatnama, Dr. Vijaikant who conducted the postmortem. The other witnesses, the prosecution proposes to examine are certain formal witnesses.

¶18

From the perusal thereof, it indicates that all the material witnesses have been examined. Learned counsel for the complainant could not dispute the fact that out of 14 eye witnesses, 10 have been examined and he further states that even on the last date, out of the three investigating ofÏcers, one has been examined and the other remaining witnesses are formal witnesses.

¶19

Upon hearing the counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that there are several orders passed by the Court to expedite the trial, however, the same has yet not concluded. As already noticed from the report submitted by the learned A.G.A., the material witnesses i.e. the injured eye witnesses

¶20

have been examined. From the perusal of the material and the statement of the complainant, the applicant has not been ascribed the role of firing and certain other co-accused with similar role as that of the applicant have been granted bail as noticed above and the fact that the manner in which the trial is continuing, it does not appear that it shall conclude soon and if this fact is seen in context the fact that the applicant has been in jail since 17.06.2021.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage where the material evidence is over and other co-accused have been enlarged on bail and the applicant has been in jail since 17.06.2021 i.e. he has already suffered incarceration of more than three years hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶22

Let the applicant Aditya Singh Alias Major involved in FIR/Case Crime No.406 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B, 188 IPC and Sections 3, 25, 27 Arms Act, relating to Police Station Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶23

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶24

(i) 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

¶25

in accordance with law.

¶26

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

(iii) Not leave the country without permission of the trial court.

¶28

(iv) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

(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 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.

¶30

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

¶31

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 ank

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aditya Singh Alias Major v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Singh Alias Major v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Jiyawan Pal and Others vs Learned Deputy Director Consolidation and Others

Putti Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Ramesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Savita Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Affairs, Lucknow and Others

Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Abdul Rasheed @ Rashid Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Teh Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 3 Others