Allowed

Ravi Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2024BAIL/9383/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application in an attempted murder case where the first application was rejected. Citing contradictory statements of injured witnesses about the applicant's role, prolonged incarceration since July 2023, bail to seven co-accused with graver roles and slow trial progress, the court allowed bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of witnesses and attendance at trial.

Ravi Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:82952

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9383 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ravi Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Singh,Atul Verma,Hari Krishna Verma,Kanchan Verma (Km.),Mukesh Kumar Tewari,Sanjeet Kumar Patel,Sudhanshu Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Kumar Singh,Sadhana

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Vinod Kumar Singh on behalf of complainant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Shri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and Shri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶9

This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application has been rejected by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14015 of 2023, the order is extracted below:-

¶10

"Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶11

The accused- applicant is involved in Case Crime No. 360 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 506, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Raunahi, District- Faizabad/ Ayodhya.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the role assigned to the applicant in the FIR is of opening fire which was missed. Though injured Rajmani improved his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and assigned him the role of assault on Shrawan but injured Shrawan has not assigned any role to the applicant. Out of

¶13

criminal history of two cases, in one case final report has been submitted and in one case the applicant is on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.7.2023, hence the prayer is made accordingly.

¶14

Learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for the bail of the applicant and submitted that the actual motive of the applicant was the property regarding which the order of maintaining status quo has been passed by this court. Four persons are said to be injured in the incident. Shrawan Kumar sustained the head injury. He was advised for 4 weeks bed rest. Even today he is not in position to speak properly and is still under treatment.

¶15

From the perusal of the FIR, it is found that there is allegation that the present applicant along with other co accused persons came having a pistol in his hands and exhorted other co accused persons. He also made fire at the wife of the first informant which was missed. On the exhortation of the present applicant, Monu Singh, Jaiki Singh and Gaurav with intention of causing death attacked on the first informant and other persons. Hearing the hue and cry Shrawan and Golu came for rescue. Again the present applicant exhorted that first Shrawan be put to death. At this call the accused persons are said to have attacked with farsa, iron rod, lathi-danda and seeing the villagers coming there all the accused persons are said to have fled away from the spot leaving Shrawan Kumar in almost dead condition.

¶16

Admittedly, four persons are said to have injured in the incident. The injury report of Rajmani is appended at page 40 of the paper book wherein four injuries are found to be shown on the person of injured. X-ray and NCCT of his 3 injuries was advised but later on x-ray was found NAD. Regarding Kusim Singh, her injury report is appended at page 43 of the paper book wherein 10 injuries are found on her person. X-ray and NCCT were advised by the doctor and the supplementary report is appended at page 46 of the paper book. Injury nos. 4 and 5 are found the fracture of 3rd and 4th metacarpal bone of left hand and right hand of the injured. The said injuries are found grievous. So far as the injury of Ajeet Singh/ the first informant is concerned, in the injury report appended at page 38 of the paper book, 4 injuries are found on his person and two x-rays were advised. In his supplementary report appended at page 54

¶17

of the paper book, as per x-ray report fracture of distal fibula was found hence, injury no. 4 was considered to be gravious. As per injury report of Shrawan appended at page 47 of the paper book 4 injuries are found on the person of the injured. The doctor has advised NCCT and x-ray. In discharge report appended at page 49 of the paper book, head injury, left temporo parietal bone fracture with underlying thin temporo parietal EDH with droplet pneumocephalus are mentioned. He is said to remain admitted in the hospital from 30.7.2023 to 3.8.2023. He is said to be advised four weeks bed rest. According to the learned counsel for the first informant, Shrawan Giri is not in position to speak properly and is under treatment till date.

¶18

The attention of the court is drawn towards the statement of Rajamani appended at page 55 of the paper book. He has stated therein that the present applicant exhorted and assaulted various blows on the head of Shrawan with lathi with the intention to cause his death and all the other co accused persons also assaulted Shrawan with lathi-danda with the same intention. The applicant was exhorting to kill Shrawan first so that no one could come forward to save the family members of Ajeet Singh. It is submitted that Rajmani has made improvement in his statement that it was the present applicant who assaulted various blows on Shrawan with intention to kill him while in the statement of Shrawan he has only assigned the role of exhortation to the present applicant and on this exhortation only Gaurav is said to have assaulted on the head of Shrawan.

¶19

The court is of the opinion that all the persons are said to have come together to commit the incident. Ravi Singh is assigned a pistol in his hands and making fire from the pistol, the fire is said to have missed but in the FIR itself it is mentioned that when Shrawan and Golu came to save the victims, applicant Ravi Singh exhorted saying that firstly Shrawan must be killed so that no one could come to save the rest victims and all the accused persons (including Ravi) assaulted Shrawan with lathi, danda and farsa. Some photographs showing the head injuries of Shrawan and injury of Kusum Singh and Ajeet Singh have been placed before the court.

¶20

Perusing the record, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the

¶21

learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶22

The application having no merit is liable to be rejected. It is hereby rejected."

¶23

The present bail application has been filed by accusedapplicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.360 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 506, 307 I.P.C., P.S. Raunahi, District Ayodhya.

¶24

Learned counsel for applicant submits that he is pressing the second bail application on the following fresh grounds:-

¶25

"(i) He submits that applicant is in jail since 31.07.2023 till date only two prosecution witnesses have been examined out of fourteen witnesses.

¶26

(ii) He submits that although all the injured have given role of exhortation to the applicant except Rajmani thus, there is contradiction in the statement of the injured witnesses. Even the injured Shravan Giri has not assigned the role of assault to the present applicant.

¶27

(iii) It is submitted that after rejection of the first bail application, seven co-accused persons who were assigned the role of causing graver assault have been granted bail by this Court, the bail orders are on record with Annexure No.RA-1 to RA-4 with the rejoinder affidavit."

¶28

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future. Applicant has explained the criminal history of two cases out of which in one case final report has been filed.

¶29

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer.

¶30

Learned A.G.A. has drawn attention of the court towards the

¶31

order dated 20.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.780 of 2024 (Rajendra, Vijay and Brijlal vs. State of U.P.) wherein this Court has observed that role of causing head injury to the injured Shravan Giri is on the present applicant, Ravi Singh.

¶32

Perused the record.

¶33

A perusal of the record shows that in the bail order of Rajendra, Vijay and Brijlal (supra), the observation has been made by this Court on the basis of the first bail rejection order of Ravi Singh, the present applicant however, a perusal of the statement of the first injured Rajmani shows that Ravi Singh has caused injuries several times on injured Shravan Giri with an intent to kill; the second injured Kusum Singh has assigned role of exhortation to Ravi Singh; the third injured Shravan Giri has not assigned role of causing injury to this applicant Ravi Singh rather the same has been assigned to co-accused Gaurav; the fourth injured Ajit Singh has only assigned the role of exhortation to Ravi Singh and the role of causing injury is not upon him. Thus, the submission of learned A.G.A. that while granting bail to the coaccused persons namely Rajendra, Vijay and Brijlal (supra) this observation has been made that causing injury to the Shravan Giri is on Ravi Singh, present applicant however, the same has come due to the observations made in the rejection of the first bail application of the applicant Ravi Singh.

¶34

From perusal of the record it is evident that the statement of the injured witnesses are contradictory to each other so far as the role of the present applicant is concerned.

¶35

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.07.2023, fact that co-accused total seven in number have been granted bail who were assigned the role of causing

¶36

graver assault, out of twelve only two prosecution witnesses have been examined so also the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another : Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 , without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶37

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶38

Let the applicant Ravi Singh be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶39

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶40

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶41

(iii) 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.

¶42

(iv) 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.

¶43

(v) 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶44

(vi) 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.

¶45

Order Date :- 11.12.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶46

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ravi Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjay Singh @ Munna Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Shailesh Gupta Shooter Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dayaram Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

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

Ranjeet Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another