Dismissed

Dev Narain @ Deva v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2024BAIL/9661/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9661 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) rejected bail for the applicant, a co-accused in an assault and looting case. The court held that a co-accused's bail rejection created similar footing and sufficient grounds to deny bail to the present applicant, citing corroborating witness statements.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant remanded to custody as no justification for release was found given prior co-accused bail denial.

Dev Narain @ Deva vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63458

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9661 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dev Narain @ Deva Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ripu Daman Shahi,Ankush Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.

¶6

Heard Sri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned A.G.A.-1 and perused the record.

¶7

This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected by this Court vide detailed order dated 29.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14762 of 2021.

¶8

The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in FIR/Case Crime No.301 of 2021, under Sections 304, 394, 411, 34 IPC, Police Station Gosainganj, District Lucknow.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that applicant is not named in the FIR, which has been lodged by the Truck owner, namely, Satish Kumar Tripathi, in which he has mentioned that deceased was Driver of his truck and he had given Rs.48,000/- to purchase Morang. He further submits that in the confessional statement of co-accused Vijay Chauhan, name of the applicant has surfaced, in which he had stated that applicant and co-accused had assaulted the deceased with iron rod and thereafter looted Rs.48,000/-. He also submits that the statement given by co-accused Vijay Chauhan has no evidentiary value under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submits that there is no record that the deceased was admitted in King Georges Medical

¶10

University, Lucknow and this aspect has been over looked by this Court while refusing the bail application of co-accused Ranveer @ Rana.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that statement of Paramveer Yadav, P.W.-2 has been recorded before the trial court and he deposed before the court that prior to death, his father had given a statement that he was assaulted by co-accused Vijay Chauhan and Dev Narain, the present applicant. He further submits that the Forensic Science Laboratory report of iron rod has not been obtained.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that statement of scriber of the FIR has been recorded by the trial court as P.W.-4 and in cross-examination, he deposed that after coming from the hospital on 29.06.2021, he lodged the report. It has been submitted that once he had been informed by the police as well as by the deceased that who assaulted him, then why he did not name the accused in the FIR. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and lapses, learned counsel for the applicants submits that conviction of the applicant is not possible and he is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that after considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, bail application of coaccused Ranveer @ Rana has been rejected by this Court vide a detailed order. He has further submitted that statements of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 recorded before the trial court have been considered by this Court while rejecting the bail application of co-accused and this Court had also considered the fact that co-accused Vijay Chauhan and the applicant had assaulted the

¶14

deceased with iron rod. He, therefore, submits that since the case of the applicant is having similar footing to that of co-accused Ranveer @ Rana, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶15

This Court while rejecting the bail application of the co-accused Ranveer @ Rana has considered all the aspects of the matter. The order dated 13.12.2023 is extracted herein below:-

¶16

"1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.D. Bhutt learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶17

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.301 of 2021 under sections 394, 411, 34, 304 IPC, Police Station Gosaiganj District Lucknow.

¶18

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that FIR has been lodged by truck owner Satish Kumar Tripathi in which he has mentioned that deceased was driver of his truck and two persons had looted Rs.48,000/- by assaulting him with iron rod.It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name was surfaced in the confessional statement of Vijay Chauhan, who confessed that he, applicant and co-accused Dev Narain had assaulted the deceased by iron rod and looted Rs.48,000/-.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that confessional statement has no evidentiary value under section 25 of the Evidence Act.

¶19

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the statement of son of the deceased, namely, Paramveer Yadav (P.W.-2) has been recorded and he deposed before the court that prior to death, his father had told that he was assaulted by co-accused Vijay Chauhan and Dev Narain and has specifically stated that applicant did not do anything wrong and he was not involved in the commission of crime.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the iron rod was not sent for FSL which is admitted in the statement of Investigating Officer (P.W.-3). He has further submitted that the Investigating Officer has also deposed before the court that the call details of the applicant is not matching with any other mobile and the applicant has been falsely implicated.

¶21

On the other hand, Sri G.D. Bhutt, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that other witnesses i.e. Investigating Officer (P.W.-3) and the Constable Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh have stated that prior to death, deceased had named the applicant and they mentioned that the applicant and other two co-accused assaulted the deceased and they looted Rs.48000/-.

¶22

Sri G.D. Bhutt has submitted that the Investigating Officer

¶23

(P.W.-3) has also named the applicant before the trial court and he has reiterated his version before the court.

¶24

Learned A.G.A. has submitted that Mahendra Pratap Singh Constable had brought the injured to the hospital and has stated that the applicant and other co-accused, namely, Vijay Chauhan and Dev Narain had assaulted the deceased with iron rod. He has also submitted that there is no reason as to why these two police officials will falsely implicate the applicant. He has further submitted that the statement of Paramveer Yadav (P.W.-2) at the moment cannot be relied upon. The statement of two police officials are corroborating with the statement of Vijai Chauhan.

¶25

Sri Ankit Pandey, holding brief of Ms. Ritu Verma has adopted the arguments as advanced by Sri G.D. Bhutt, learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶26

10 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the argument that the trial is still going on and the statement of Investigating Officer (P.W.-3) indicates that he has named the applicant mentioning therein that prior to death, deceased had stated that the applicant and other two co-accused Vijay Chauhan and Dev Narain had assaulted the deceased and the argument that statement of Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, Constable and the statement of co-accused, namely, Vijay Chauhan and Dev Narain are corroborating, therefore, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶27

Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant- Ranveer @ Rana is rejected at this stage. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove shall not affect the trial proceedings."

¶28

Considering the aver all arguments of the learned counsel for the parties; the fact that this Court has rejected the bail application of co-accused Ranveer @ Rana considering the statements of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3; the argument that there was dying declaration of the deceased and also the statement of P.W.-2, in which the applicant has been named for commission of crime, it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶29

Bail application is accordingly rejected.

¶30

¶31

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶32

Order Date :- 12.9.2024 Rao/-

¶33

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dev Narain @ Deva v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dev Narain @ Deva v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Mahesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Pradeep Kumar Alias Annu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mata Bux Singh vs State of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. and 4 Others

Ibney Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Anjani Mishra Alias Vikas vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.