Manmohan Singh @ Devansh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19823

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 405 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Manmohan Singh @ Devansh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Singh Rajawat,Abhishek Singh,Ajay Singh,Akash Verma,Bhoopal Singh,Udai Pratap Yadav

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Govind Kumar,Jay Narayan Mishra,Sandeep Rawat

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Bhoopal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Govind Kumar, the learned counsel for the informant and perused the records.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.367 of 2023 under Sections 302, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Gomti Nagar, District- Lucknow.

¶10

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 18.06.2023 against the applicant and Abhay Pratap Singh stating that the informant's son had gone out with his friend Jai Jaiswal at about 10:00 PM on 17.06.2023 and he did not come back. Jai Jaiswal came to the applicant at about 05:00 AM and told him that they had gone to the house of Avinash near railway crossing, Badi Jugauli, Gomti Nagar where Avinash, Prince, Rishabh were also present. Rishabh had borrowed Rs.1000/- from co-accused Abhay Pratap Singh. When Rishabh demanded refund of money through a phone call made at about 01:30 AM to Abhay Pratap Singh, some hot talks took place between them and co-accused Abhay Pratap Singh

¶11

had abused and threatened him. Both the co-accused persons reached the house of Avinash at about 03:00 AM. They were carrying large knifes and as soon as they entered the house, they attacked Akash. When Akash fell unconscious, both of them ran away. They had chased Jai Jaiswal also for assaulting him but he ran inside a railway cabin to save himself. Thereafter, he instructed Avinash and Rishabh to take the injured Akash to Hospital and he came to the informant to tell about the incident. Upon reaching KGMU with his wife, the informant found his son dead. A copy of the postmortem examination report annexed with the bail application shows that the deceased had suffered as many as 18 stab wounds and the cause of death has been opined to be shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injuries.

¶12

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶13

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation and a copy of the charge-sheet. Jai Jaiswal, who gave information of the incident to the deceased's father, Rishabh Srivastava, Avinash Tiwari, Rahul Kumar, Vinay Kumar and Luvkush Yadav have stated that all of them were present at the time of incident and they have witnessed both the accused persons assaulting the deceased with knifes .

¶14

A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith a copy of "death statement of the patients" issued by Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospital, Lucknow which mentions that the dead body of the deceased had been brought by the informant himself on 18.06.2023 at 05:20 AM. On the strength of the aforesaid document, the learned counsel

¶15

for the applicant has submitted that the narration in the FIR that the informant had been informed about death of his son by his son's friend Jai Jaiswal and he found dead body of his son upon reaching the Hospital, stands belied by this document. The death statement of the patient was filled by the Doctor on duty and the discrepancy in narration made by the Doctor and the statement in the FIR, does not establish innocence of the applicant, when numerous eye-witnesses have categorically stated that they had seen the applicant and co-accused persons causing multiple knife injuries on the body of the deceased, which statements are corroborated by the postmortem report which mentions as many as 18 stab wounds on the dead body.

¶16

The learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that Jai Jaiswal had stated that all the persons present there were consuming alcohol. As all of them had consumed alcohol, they would not have been in a condition to understand the things correctly and their statements become meaningless. This statement of the learned counsel for the applicant also does not merit acceptance as it cannot be said that any person who consumes alcohol, becomes unable of understanding the things.

¶17

The learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that no motive has been assigned against the applicant and the only thing which has been said that the other co-accused persons had borrowed some money from one Rishabh. The statements prima facie establish that a dispute had taken place between coaccused Abhay Pratap Singh and Rishabh when the latter demanded return of some money lent by him whereupon Abhay Pratap Singh and the applicant came to the spot armed with knives and they killed the victim. In the these circumstances, it can't be accepted that there was no motive. Moreover, when there is overwhelming direct ocular evidence, the absence of

¶18

motive becomes meaningless.

¶19

The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant's presence at the spot could not be established from a perusal of the CCTV footage.

¶20

The CCTV footage has been taken from a place outside the house in which the incident took place. Numerous persons who have witnessed the incident taking place inside the house have categorically stated about the involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence. Therefore, the applicant being identified in CCTV footage from a place outside the place of occurrence would not be conclusive so as to override the overwhelming evidence of statements of numerous eyewitnesses. Moreover, it is recorded in the case diary that two persons carrying something were seen going inside the house and they were seen coming outside the house in close proximity of the alleged time of the incident. Nobody had stated that the persons seen did not include the applicant. Therefore, this submission of the learned counsel also does not deserves acceptance and the same is rejected.

¶21

Keeping in view the nature of allegations, the nature of injuries inflicted on the deceased and the statement of the eyewitnesses, I am of the view that the facts of the present case do not warrant exercise of discretion by this court by enlarging the applicant on bail

¶22

This bail application is accordingly rejected .

¶23

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 8.4.2025 -Amit K-

¶25

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

Manmohan Singh @ Devansh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manmohan Singh @ Devansh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow

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

Mohd. Arif @ Anna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

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

Vikas Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Adil Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Manmohan Singh @ Devansh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow

Umesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home