Allahabad High Court
Anil Singh vs State Of U.P. on 21 November, 2022
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34864 of 2022 Applicant :- Anil Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Mishra,Anil Kumar Shukla,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Birendra Singh Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Uday Karan Saxena, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Om Prakash Mishra and Mr. Anik Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and V. P. Srivastava, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Anurag Rai Advocate holding brief of Mr. Birendra Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant.
2. Rejoinder affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicant in court today are taken on record.
2. Perused the record.
3. Instant application for bail has been filed by applicant-Anil Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 08 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 506 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Girwan, District-Banda, during the pendency of trial.
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 07.01.2021, a delayed F.I.R. dated 08.01.2021 was lodged by first informant Saroj Kumar Singh and was registered as Case Crime No. 0008 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 506 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Girwan, District-Banda. In the aforesaid F.I.R., seven persons namely Anoop Singh, Ajay Singh, Anil Singh, Viraj Singh, Vipin Singh, Vikas Singh and Dheeru @ Dhirendra Singh have been nominated as named accused.
5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R is to the effect that named accused with a common intention as well as common object assaulted Ajeet Singh on account of which, he sustained gun shot injury on his chest. Resultantly, he succumbed to injury sustained by him. Certain other person from the side of informant ( as detailed in F.I.R.) were also assaulted, who have sustained injuries.
6. As per prosecution story each of named accused is to be armed with following weapons:
i. Annop Singh armed with country made gun.
ii, Ajay Singh armed with Danda.
iii. Anil Singh armed with country made pistol.
iv. Viraj Singh armed with Danda.
v. Vipin Singh armed with Danda and Fawra.
vi. Vikas Singh armed with Danda and Fawra.
vii. Dheeru @ Dhirendra Singh Armed with Danda.
8. After registration of aforementioned F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. He examined first informant and other witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who have supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Inquest (Panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted thereafter. In the opinion of panch witnesses, nature of death of deceased was characterised as homicidal. Subsequently, post-mortem of the body of deceased was conducted. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of deceased found a gun shot injury. Photocopy of same is on record at page 60 of paper-book.
7. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem injuries sustained by injured.
8. In the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings there are five other persons namely Abhay Singh, Ankit Singh, Rakesh Singh, Pirthivi Raj and Gagveer, who have sustained injureis. Photocopies of Medico Legal report of aforementioned injured are on record from page 61 to page 69 of the paper book.
9. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of named accused is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the charge-sheet dated 08.04.2022 whereby named accused have been charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 506, 34 I.P.C.
9. At the very outset, Mr. Uday Karan Saxena, the learned Senior Counsel submits that though the applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused but he is liable to be enlarged on bail. It is then contended by learned senior counsel that i. named co-accused Viraj Singh has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2021. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein-under:
"Supplementary affidavit, filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The first information report was lodged against seven accused persons including the applicant and that the applicant and co-accused Vikas and Dhiru @ Dhirendra were attributed general role of assault by lathi and danda. In the alleged incident both sides have sustained injuries and that from the side of applicant, cross first information report was lodged by Rigvendra Singh under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 308 and 427 IPC against first informant and other persons and that from the side of applicant six persons have sustained injuries. It was submitted that in fact, it was informant's party which has assaulted the accused party and that no specific role was assigned to applicant in causing injuries to deceased or injured persons. It was also pointed out that deceased has suffered death due to single firearm injury and that even as per prosecution version, no role of firing has been attributed to the applicant. It has been further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Vikas Singh and Dhiru @ Dhirendra Singh have already been released on bail vide order dated 30.07.2021 and 26.08.2021, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24887 of 2021 and 28427 of 2021. It has been further submitted that criminal history of two cases was shown against the applicant and in both the said cases the police have submitted Final Report and the said criminal history has duly been explained in supplementary affidavit. Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.01.2021, having no criminal history and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in first information report and that he was involved in the alleged incident. However, it could not be disputed that similarly placed co-accused Vikas Singh and Dhiru @ Dhirendra Singh have already been granted bail.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Viraj Singh involved in Case Crime No. 08 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC, P.S. Girwan, District Banda, be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2.The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3.The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 9.9.2021 "
ii. Another Named co-accused Vipin Singh has also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.03.2022. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein-under:
"Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pushpendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashant Kumar learned counsel for the informant/complainant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material brought on record.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. It is next submitted that there is no cogent and credential evidence against the applicant which may show involvement of the applicant in the present case. There is no independent reliable eye witness of the alleged incident. It is next contended that medical report of the victim does not support the case of prosecution. The applicant has no motive to commit the alleged offence. Nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. It is next contended that it is a cross case in which both sides have received injuries and at this stage it cannot be said as to who was aggressor and the incident had taken place at the spur of the moment. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant is in jail since 8.4.2013, and undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It is lastly contended that co-accused persons have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.7.2021, 26.8.2021, and 9.9.2021, passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 24887, 28427 and 27748 of 2021, respectively (copies of the said order have been produced before the Court which is taken on record). ?
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant without disputing the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that in case applicant is released on bail he will misuse the liberty of bail.
Courts have taken notice of overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref: Sue, Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020 , Contagion of Covid 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let applicant- Vipin Singh, be released on bail arising out of Case Crime No. 08 of 2021, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station- Girwan, District- Banda, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court below subject to following conditions:- :-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 31.3.2022 "
iii. Lastly named co-accused Vikas Singh has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2021. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein-under:
" 1. Applicant-Vikas Singh, has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after rejection of his Bail Application vide order dated 01.06.2021, passed by Incharge Sessions Judge, Banda, in Case Crime No.08 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Girwan, District Banda.
2. Sri Viresh Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate for applicant, has submitted that alleged occurrence has a cross version also. Informant is a politically influential person. He and his associates, who are co-accused in cross case, have long criminal history. Informant has admitted that there was prior political rivalry between complainant and accused side. It was alleged that applicant and other six co-accused were objected by complainant side when they were demanding money from a contractor, who was constructing a CC Road in the village. While complainant side were witnessing the construction, the accused party came and started assaulting the persons of complainant side. Accused, Anoop Singh, Anil Singh and Vipin were alleged specific role of causing injury by butt of rifle, by firing from a country made pistol and assaulting by Fawda respectively. In the occurrence one person from complainant side, namely, Ajeet died during treatment. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that deceased died due to single firearm injury whereas other alleged injured persons have received simple injuries. It was pointed out that during occurrence as many as five persons from accused side were injured, out of them atleast two suffered grievous injuries. Considering the injuries caused on both sides it would not be possible at this stage to determine, which party was the aggressor. Neither any specific role nor any motive was assigned to the applicant. It is also submitted that so far as applicant is concerned, he has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 16.03.2021 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
3. Per contra, Sri B.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Padmaker Pandey, Advocate appearing for Informant and learned A.G.A. appearing for State, have opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that accused persons also have a detailed criminal history. They were collecting Gunda Tax from the contractors, which was objected by villagers also and there is an evidence on record that accused persons have not even considered the order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate with regard to construction of road. There is also evidence that hearing hue and cry many villagers came at the place of occurrence and they retaliate with stones and used force to repulse the accused side. Applicant was one of the member of unlawful assembly who were carrying deadly weapons. They have not only caused multiple injuries to injured persons but also caused death of one person, therefore, applicant is not entitled for bail.
4. I have considered the submissions advanced by rival parties and perused the material available on record.
5(A) Law on bail is well settled that 'Bail is rule and Jail is exception'. Bail should not be granted or rejected in a mechanical manner as it concerns liberty of a person. At the time of considering an application for bail, the Court must take into account certain factors such as existence of a prima facie case against the accused, gravity of the allegations, severity of punishment, position and status of the accused, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the Courts as well as criminal antecedents of the accused.
(B) It is also well settled that the Court while considering an application for bail must not go into deep merits of the matter such as question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses which can only be tested during the trial. Even ground of parity is one of the above mentioned aspects which are essentially required to be considered. It is also well settled that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner, compassionately and not in whimsical manner.
(C) The Court should record the reasons which have weighed with the count for the exercise of its discretionary power for an order granting or rejecting bail. Conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.
6. From the submissions advanced by rival parties as well as on the basis of material available on record, it is apparent that there is also a cross version of alleged occurrence. Persons from both sides have got injured and have criminal history also. Deceased has died due to single firearm injury. Presence of both parties at the site is prima facie not disputed. Taking note of the submission that in these circumstances it would not be possible at this stage to decide which party was aggressor and also considering that no specific role was attributed to applicant and he has no criminal history and further that he is languishing in jail since 16.03.2021, this Court is of the view that a case of grant of bail is made out.
7. Let the applicant- Vikas Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
8. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. Observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.
11. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
12. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
13. 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 :-30.07.2021 "
iv. Named co-accused Dhiru @ Dhirendra Singh has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 26.08.2021. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein-under;
" 1. Heard Sri Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Padmaker Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.
2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Dhiru @ Dhirendra Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 08 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 506, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Girwan, District Banda.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the present case, has a cross -version also. It is argued that the cross-case has been registered on 18.01.2021 at about 11:30 hrs by Righubendra Singh who is the cousin of the applicant, naming 10 persons as accused therein as Case Crime No. 0015 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 308, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Girwan, District Banda. It is argued that the applicant in the present case, has been assigned common and general role of having a lathi with him and thereby assaulting along with other co-accused persons. It is argued that from the side of the prosecution in the present case, 04 persons have received injuries and from the side of the applicant, 05 persons have received injuries. It is argued that the role of firing upon the deceased (Ajeet Singh) is assigned to co-accused Anoop Singh and the role of assault on Abhay Singh has been assigned to co-accused Vipin by a fawda. The other accused persons being five in number including the applicant, have been assigned common and general role of assault by a lathi. It is argued that the accused persons of the present case including the applicant were objected by the side of the first informant as they were demanding money from a contractor who was doing the work of construction on a CC Road in the village. Since the side of the first informant were eye-witnesses to the construction, the applicant and co-accused persons came and started assaulting them. Co-accused Anoop Singh, Anil Singh and Vipin have been assigned the specific role of causing injury by butt of a rifle, from a country-made pistol / firearm and assault by a fawda. As per the postmortem examination report, the deceased (Ajeet Singh), has received a single gun-shot injury which is noted as an antemortem gunshot injury and the cause of death has been opined as shock and haemorrhage due to firearm injury, the copy of the postmortem report is annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. One metallic bullet was present in the said injury. From the side of the applicant, 05 persons have received injuries. The copy of the injury reports have been placed before the Court which are annexed as Annexure-9 to the affidavit. It is argued that although the said injuries were examined on 11.01.2021 and the incident in question, was of 07.01.2021 but the doctor examining the injured persons has opined the duration of the injuries to be about 4-5 days and as such, the same corresponds with the date and time of the incident. It is argued that out of the 05 injured from the side of the applicant, Basu Singh received a fracture on his vital part of the body, even the injuries received by the other injured persons namely, Awadhvihari, Righubendra Singh, Raj Kapoor Singh and Vipin Singh were also opined to be of the duration about 4-5 days and they were also medically examined on 11.01.2021, out of which except for the injuries received by Vipin Singh, Raj Kapoor Singh, the injuries received by the two other injured persons were on vital parts of the body. It is argued that the case as such, is a cross-case in which both the sides have received injuries and as to who was the aggressor, would be a matter of trial. The applicant has no motive to commit the aforesaid offence. It is argued that the first informant / Saroj Kumar Singh is having criminal history of 18 cases, the deceased (Ajeet Singh) is having criminal history of 16 cases, Chhtrapal Singh, the father of the deceased (Ajeet Singh) is having criminal history of 23 cases and Arun Singh, son of the first informant is also having criminal history of 09 cases, the reference of which is mentioned in paragraph 19 of the affidavit and the details of criminal history are annexed as Annexure-12 to the affidavit. It is argued that charge-sheet in the present matter has been submitted and as such, there is no chance of the applicant, tampering with the evidence during investigation. It is argued that co-accused Vikas Singh, has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.07.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24887 of 2021 (Vikas Singh vs. State of U.P.), the copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. The applicant is in jail since 08.02.2021.
4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the first informant and learned counsel for the State have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the cross version as is shown from the side of the applicant is not a cross-case. It is argued that the first information report of the said cross version is a delayed report which was registered on 18.01.2021 at 11:30 hrs and as such, is an afterthought. It is further argued that in the first information report of the present case, there is a reference that the villagers had pelted bricks and stones on the side of the accused persons when they came and had indulged in the assault and their vehicle got damaged which was standing at the place of occurrence and as such, the version from the side of the accused is well explained.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that there is a cross version of the incident. Both the sides have received injuries. From the side of the prosecution, 04 persons are injured and 01 person has lost his life whereas five persons have received injuries from the side of the accused amongst which the injuries received by 03 persons are on vital parts of their bodies. There is a single gunshot injury to the deceased. The applicant has been assigned common and general role of assault by a lathi along with other co-accused persons. The side of the first informant has criminal history. The version of the first information report does not in any manner create any doubt that the accused side were also present at the place of occurrence and their version as such, cannot be thrown out as of now.
6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
7. Let the applicant- Dhiru @ Dhirendra Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
8. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
11. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
12. 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 :- 26.08.2021 "
7. It is then contended by learned senior counsel that present applicant as per prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. is alleged to be armed with a country made gun. He is further alleged to have fired a shot. However, it is an admitted case of the prosecution that no injury was sustained by any person from the shot fired by applicant. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant contends that case of present applicant is the better footing than the aforementioned named co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail. It is then contended that for the facts as noted above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail orders of co-accused, who have already enlarged on bail, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is then contended that as per post mortem report, the deceased has sustained one fatal gun shot injury. It is admitted to prosecution that author of injury sustained by deceased is named to co-accused Anoop Singh. It is lastly contended that applicant has criminal history to two cases, which have been duly explained in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit. However, the said criminal proceedings are not such so as to deny him bail. Applicant is in jail since 2306.2022. As such, he has undergone almost five months of incarceration. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. The charge-sheet has already been submitted against applicant therefore the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant, stands crystallised. As such, custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary during the course of trial. On the cumulative strength of above, the learned senior counsel submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail
10. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and Mr. V. P. Srivastave, the learned senior counsel appearing for first informant have opposed the present application for bail. They jointly submits that since the applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused, therefore, applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. It is then contended that applicant has been chrge-sheeted under Sections 149 and 34 I.P.C. As such there was common object as well as common intention with applicant also in committing the crime in question. Criminality, alleged against applicant and other named accused is interlinked and intertwined and therefore incapable of segregation and separation. Applicant was a party to the crime and armed with a deadly weapon. Applicant is guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 149/34 I.P.C. Therefore, applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by learned senior counsel for applicant.
11. Having heard the learned senior counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, Mr. V. P. Srivastava, the learned senior counsel representing first informant, upon consideration of evidence on record, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that applicant is alleged to have fired a gun shot but no injury was sustained by any person, co-accused armed with other weapon have already been enlarged on bail, author of the fatal gun shot injury sustained by deceased is said to be co-accused Anoop Singh but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail, at this stage.
12. Accordingly, present application for bail is allowed.
13. Let the applicant-Anil Singh involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.
(ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
14. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant and send him to prison Order Date :- 21.11.2022 YK