Allowed

Shekhar Singh @ Ashcharya Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko.

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2024BAIL/10172/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second bail application in a case involving murder and other serious offences. The court observed that fact witnesses had been recorded and exonerated the applicant of causing firearm injuries. With no criminal history and no material suggesting he would affect the trial, the applicant was enlarged on bail. Case CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10172 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail after furnishing personal bonds and two reliable local sureties.

Shekhar Singh @ Ashcharya Singh vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66337

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10172 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shekhar Singh @ Ashcharya Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh,Sakshi Singh,Sameer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent complainant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

This second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in FIR/Case Crime No.522 of 2023, under Section 302, 307, 506 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Poorakalandar, District Ayodhya.

¶8

The first bail application filed by the applicant was rejected on 12.7.2024. while rejecting the first bail application, the court had directed that three witnesses i.e. the informant, his son as well as one Vimal Singh be recorded, within a period of two months.

¶9

In terms of the directions issued by this Court, on 12.7.2024, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the statement of all the three witnesses have been recorded. He further drawn my attention to the statements which are on record from page 198 onwards wherein as against the applicant, it was alleged that the applicant was carrying a rod in his hand. The allegations with regard to holding of firearm was alleged against the co accused.

¶10

In the light of the said, it is argued on behalf of the applicant that the death has occurred on account of pellet injuries, as is evident from the post mortem report and none of the said injuries was attributable to any hard and blunt object which can be caused by a rod. He thus, argued that once the fact witnesses are recorded, then

¶11

the applicant who is languishing in jail since 22.2.2024 having no criminal history may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Shri A.K.Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent complainant as well as learned A.G.A. strongly opposed the prayer for bail by arguing that in terms of the testimonies recorded, it was stated that the applicant was carrying an iron road and one of the injured person has received grievous injuries, as is evident from the injury report which includes the injury on the head. It is further argued that from the testimonies recorded so far and during investigation, it is clear that all the said persons had come with a common intent to commit the offence in question and considering the gravity of the offence as noted by this court in its earlier bail rejection order, the prayer for bail should be rejected instead a direction be issued for expediting the trial. It is not disputed that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶13

What transpires from the record is that from perusal of the testimonies recorded so far, no role of causing firearm injury was assigned to the applicant who was alleged to be carrying an iron road. As per the chargesheet, there are three witnesses of fact who have already been examined. The rest of the witnesses are not witnesses of fact.

¶14

Considering the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and languishing in jail since 22.2.2024 coupled with the fact that there is no material on record to suggest that after recording of the testimonies of the fact witnesses, the applicant can affect the trial in any manner, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant Shekhar Singh @ Ascharya Singh be released on bail in the above said first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable local sureties each to the satisfaction of the court

¶17

concerned with the following conditions:

¶18

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶19

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶20

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, 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

It is however directed that the trial court shall make an endeavour to conclude the trial without giving any unnecessary adjourments to any of the parties, with all expedition.

¶22

Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya, shall ensure that the formal witnesses are produced before the court and record their statements.

¶23

Order Date :- 24.9.2024

¶24

Shukla

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shekhar Singh @ Ashcharya Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shekhar Singh @ Ashcharya Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs 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

Atul Yadav @ Pradeep Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home , Lko.

Dhiru @ Dhirendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home , Lko.

Jagdish and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

U.P. State Industrial Development Authority,Trans Ganga City,Unnao Thru. Its Senior Project Officer vs Deepak Dwivedi

Smt. Parwati vs State of U.P. Thur. Addl. Chief Secy Deptt. of Home Lko.

Jitendra Sahu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.