Allahabad High Court
Amit Kumar Singh @ Deepu Singh vs State Of U.P. on 6 July, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 1779
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32007 of 2019 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh @ Deepu Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Upadhyay,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi,Chandan Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri. Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Chandan Sharma and Sri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Manu Raj Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This is a second bail application on behalf of the present applicant. The first bail application was rejected vide order dated 05.07.2018 passed by Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. (as he then was) by a detailed order which had a correction in the same which was subsequently done vide order dated 05.07.2019. Both the orders are annexed as Annexure- 2 to the affidavit in support of the bail application. The file of the first bail application being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36330 of 2016 is also connected with this file on the basis of an order dated 07.08.2019 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The present bail application along with its connected file is listed today in the additional cause list.
This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Amit Kumar Singh @ Deepu Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 251 of 2016, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi.
Learned Senior Counsel argued that the present case is virtually a case of no evidence. The applicant has been falsely implicated. The trial in the present matter has started being Sessions Trial No. 301 of 2016- State of U.P. vs. Manoj Singh and Others, under Section 302, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi. As of now the statement of Sanjay Kumar Singh, P.W.-1 and Tarkeshwar Singh, P.W.-2 has been recorded wherein he has drawn the attention of the Court to the parts of statement to buttress his argument that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report and there was not even an iota of evidence or even suspicion in the matter so far as he is concerned. The FIR does not in any manner even remotely suggest the presence and implication of the applicant in the present matter. He further states that the introduction of Tarkeshwar Singh who has been produced and examined as P.W.-2 before the trial court is an afterthought and the reason as given by Tarkeshwar Singh himself for not informing the names of the accused cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination. He further argues that the reason as stated for not naming of the applicant by Tarkeshwar Singh is that he fainted while sitting in the XUV car and that period during which he remained in an unconcious condition stretched too long and even during the intervening period inquest was done and completed is too far-fetched and a thing not to be believed at all. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of Sanjay Kumar Singh, P.W.-1 wherein he subsequently introduces a new story and then also points out from the statement of Tarkeshwar Singh, P.W.-2 the new story which has been developed by the prosecution in order to implicate the applicant which as per the learned Senior Counsel is totally false, concocted and an afterthought version. He states that the first bail application which was rejected was at that point of time rejected on the material present before the Court and there is no reference of the statements of two witnesses recorded in Court to be present before the Court and as such the present bail application which contains the said two statements should be considered and the present bail application be considered with new facts. He further argued that the applicant having no criminal history as stated in para 17 of the affidavit is in jail since 22.04.2016. The trial is pending and has not yet advanced any further as per instructions received by him.
Per contra learned counsel appearing for the first informant argued that the applicant is actively involved in the present matter. There is no change in the role as assigned to the applicant which was mentioned and discovered during investigation to that which has been stated by two witnesses produced and examined before trial. He further argued that the case of the prosecution has remained consistent throughout so far as the version is concerned and prays that the bail application be rejected.
Learned A.G.A. also vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that the first bail application was rejected on 05.07.2018. The statement of Sanjay Kumar Singh, P.W.-1 was recorded from 14.09.2017 to 29.05.2018. The statement of Tarkeshwar Singh, P.W.-2 was recorded from 07.08.2018 to 27.05.2019. He argued that the rejection of the first bail application by a co-ordinate Bench on 05.07.2018 was after recording of the statement of Sanjay Kumar Singh, P.W.-1 and as such it cannot be said that the said ground was not available at the time of rejection of the first bail application. He further argues that releasing the applicant on bail at the present moment may have an adverse effect on the trial as there are good chances of his tampering with evidence and threatening the witnesses. He further adopts the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant but supplements that looking to the gravity of offence and the nature of incident the applicant is not entitled to bail.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the trial in the present matter has started being Sessions Trial No. 301 of 2016 (State of U.P. vs. Manoj Singh and Others) in which two prosecution witnesses being Sanjay Kumar Singh, P.W.-1 and Tarkeshwar Singh, P.W.-2 have been examined. Appreciating the evidence of the witnesses at the stage of bail will not be proper. The trial is admittedly under progress and has not yet concluded.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case,I do not find it a fit case bail, hence, the bail application is rejected at this stage.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the Sessions Trial No. 301 of 2016 (State of U.P. vs. Manoj Singh and Others) and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C., subject to any legal impediment.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 6.7.2020 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal, J.)