Vinod Dubey @ Pappu Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27491

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11826 of 2024 Applicant :- Vinod Dubey @ Pappu Dubey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Tiwari,Prashant Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rizwanul Haque Ansari,Santi

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Prashant Dubey, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ravi Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This is the third bail application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.313 of 2017, under Sections 302/34, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Akahand Nagar, District Sultanpur. The first Bail Application No. 6744 of 2018 was rejected by means of an order dated 18.04.2019 and second Bail Application No. 7310 of 2019 filed for release of the applicant on bail was rejected by means of an order dated 30.01.2024

¶7

For the following reasons:-

¶8

"From perusal of the records, the case as emerged is that the allegations were levelled against the applicant of having used the firearm and causing murder of the victim, there are three eye witnesses to the incident as disclosed in the charge sheet and the applicant has as many as 16 cases registered against him, this Court is inclined to accept the submission of counsel for the applicant that right to speedy justice is well established part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which prima-facie has been denied in the present case, which according to the learned Additional Government Advocate is partly because of Covid-19 pandemic situation in the country.

¶9

This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the allegations levelled against the applicant are very grievous in nature and the act committed allegedly is gruesome, however, to balance the rights of the applicant with the implication of social effect of release, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Court below to pass requisite order committing the case to the session trial within a period of two months from today. "

¶10

After passing of the aforesaid order, four prosecution witnesses have been examined by the trial court, two of whom have been declared to be hostile.

¶11

The informant has been examined as P.W.-1 and a copy of his statement recorded by the trial court has been annexed with the bail application. He has supported the prosecution case.

¶12

Copies of statement of P.W.- 2,3 and 4 have been brought on record along with the supplementary affidavit filed today which is taken on record. P.W.-2 Devi Prasad stated during investigation that his shop is situated in Rahul Nagar market while he had closed his shop and came on the road in the evening at 25.12.2017. He heard some noise, abuses and gunshots. It was about 6:30 PM. He had seen the applicant standing with a gun. He had seen that the other accused person Suraj Tiwari had shot at Gaurav Singh and was abusing Gaurav Singh.

¶13

However, in the statement recorded before the trial court, P.W.2 has stated that after hearing the gun shots, he had gone to the shop of the deceased at about 6:30 PM. At the time of hearing gunshots, he had reached his home. He had no knowledge as to who had fired the gunshot. He has been declared to be hostile.

¶14

P.W.-4 Ram Surat is not described in the FIR or any of the statement recorded by the investigating officer as an eye witness. Therefore, his statement that he had not seen any person shooting at the deceased, makes no difference.

¶15

The Doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination report has been examined as P.W.3 and he has opined that the death might have taken place at about 1 PM. This opinion of the doctor regarding estimation of the time of death does not conclusively prove the time of death.

¶16

The learned A.G.A has submitted that four witnesses of facts are yet to be examined.

¶17

Without making any observation which may affect the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid facts do not warrant exercise of discretion of this Court by ordering release of the applicant on bail by allowing his third bail application.

¶18

Accordingly, this third bail application stands rejected.

¶19

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Preeti.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinod Dubey @ Pappu Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Dubey @ Pappu Dubey 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

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramroop Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Asmit Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Hari Gopal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Balvir Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Hadi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Vinod Dubey @ Pappu Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.