Omveer Singh vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8662

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1613 of 2025

Applicant :- Omveer Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Jaiswal,Ravindra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain, J.

¶6

Sri D.R. Chaudhary, learned Advocate filed his appearance on behalf of informant which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.R. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the informant and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.612 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station-Nandgram, DistrictGhaziabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged on 12.07.2024 against coaccused Anuj Chaudhary (son of applicant) and his unknown associate and according to the FIR on 11.7.2024 co-accused Anuj Chaudhary called the brother of the informant at the shop of his father i.e. applicant and when he went there along with his cousin brother Vikas, then co-accused Anuj Chaudhary and his unknown associate opened fire upon them and brother of the informant namely Vikas died and another brother Naveen sustained serious injuries.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, applicant is the father of the co-accused Anuj Chaudhary, who was named in the FIR but applicant was not named in the FIR but surprisingly when the statement of the informant was recorded during investigation then he narrated totally new story and along with the nominated co-accused Anuj Chaudhary, he also introduced applicant and co-accused Kuldeep and Raja and according to his statement recorded during investigation, coaccused Raja Sharma caught hold the Vikas Chaudhary and

¶11

thereafter, co-accused Kuldeep caused fire-arm injuries to him and co-accused Anuj Chaudhary caused fire-arm injuries to Naveen Kumar. Informant further stated that applicant earlier made exhortation.

¶12

He further submits that from the statement of the informant it appears that he was not an eye witness, however, during investigation, Investigating Officer introduced two eye witnesses, Dhiraj and Yogendra but they have reiterated the version of the informant.

¶13

He further submits that even the role of only exhortation has been given to the applicant.

¶14

He further submits that it appears as applicant is the father of the nominated co-accused Anuj Chaudhary, therefore, he has also been made accused in the present matter during investigation by the informant.

¶15

He further submits that during investigation the injured Navin had also lost his life, therefore, however, it is a case of double murder but considering the fact of the case it reflects that applicant has been falsely made accused in the present matter.

¶16

He further submits that however, apart from the present case applicant was not having any previous criminal history but after the present case he has also been made accused under Gangster Act.

¶17

He further submits in the present matter applicant is in jail since 13.07.2024.

¶18

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that with regard to the incident, the wife of the applicant also moved an application under section 175 B.N.S.S. against the informant side which has been annexed at page 102 of the paper book and on her application FIR has also been lodged against the informant side which has been annexed at page 101 of the paper book and from its perusal it reflects that presence of the applicant at the spot is admitted but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that even as per statements of the alleged eye-witnesses applicant only made exhortation and role of causing injuries to the deceased persons has not been attributed to him.

¶19

They further could not dispute the fact that applicant was not

¶20

having any previous criminal history to his credit, however learned counsel for the informant submits that son of applicant i.e. coaccused Anuj Chaudhary and his other family members are the hardened criminal.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶22

From the records it reflects that applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation when the statement of informant was recorded then he disclosed the name of the applicant along with others and he only attributed the role of exhortation to the applicant.

¶23

Further, from the perusal of the statements of the two alleged eye-witnesses which have been annexed along with the instant bail application it also reflects that they attributed the role of only exhortation to the applicant.

¶24

Further, however, it is a case of double murder in which two persons have lost their life but even as per the prosecution applicant did not cause any injury to any of them and role of causing injury has been specifically attributed to co-accused Anuj Chaudhary (son of applicant) and co-accused Kuldeep.

¶25

Further, applicant is having criminal history of a solitary case relates to the provisions of U.P. Gangster Act but it appears that he was not having any previous criminal history and on the basis of present case he has been made accused under the provisions of Gangster Act. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 13.07.2024.

¶26

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶27

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶28

Let the applicant -Omveer Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶29

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶30

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶31

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶32

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶33

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶34

Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Neeraj

¶35

Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Omveer Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omveer Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Lal Yadav vs State of U.P.

Abhiramjeet Yadav vs State of U.P.

Rohtash vs State of U.P.

Shivbahadur vs State of U.P.

Krishnapal Alias Kishan vs State of U.P.