Allahabad High Court
Vijay Singh vs State Of U.P. on 19 December, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1795 of 2020 Applicant :- Vijay Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Divaker Singh,Abhist Vikram Singh,Aman Kumar Shrivastav,Dr. Pooja Singh,Manmohan Singh,Prashant Singh Atal,Sandeep Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Harish Pandey,Illegible,Permeshwar Dutt Tewari,Prarthna Singh,Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi,Vaibhav Kalia connected with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1377 of 2020 Applicant :- Deepraj Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mrs.Suniti Sachan,Arun Sinha,Yaduvansh Mani Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Illegible,Permeshwar Dutt Tewari,Prarthna Singh,Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi,Vaibhav Kalia Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
2. The present applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed seeking bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.37 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Jagdishpur, District Amethi.
3. As per the allegation in the FIR, on 7.2.2019 at around 4 PM Purushottam Dutt Tewari, deceased and father of the complainant, was going on motorcycle with his younger son to his house from Warisganj. It is alleged that a little behind, anther motorcycle of another son of the deceased was coming to his house. As soon as both the motorcycles, in which the deceased along with his two sons were travelling, reached to the Warisganj Railway Station, on two motorcycles five persons named in the FIR came there and waylaid the deceased. They fired at the deceased from country made pistols several rounds, as a result thereof, he died.
4. Post-mortem report would suggest as many as nine injuries on the body of the deceased and cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortm injuries. The motive for murder of Purushottam Dutt Tewari, deceased, has been assigned the murder of the father of Indresh Pratap Singh, in which Purushottam Dutt Tewari was one of the accused.
5. Two accused having similar role in the FIR, namely Malkhan Singh and Vikram Singh were granted bail by this Court. The complainant challenged these orders before the Supreme Court granting bail to two co-accused. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal vide judgement and order reported as (2020) 11 SCC 648. The Supreme Court in paragraph 9 while dismissing the appeal, held as under:-
"9. The accused is Malkhan Singh in this appeal. He was named in the FIR by the appellant Prabhakar Tewari as one of the five persons who had intercepted the motorcycle on which the deceased victim was riding, in front of Warisgaj Railway Station (Halt) on the highway. All the five accused persons, including Malkhan Singh, as per the FIR and majority of the witness statements, had fired several rounds upon the deceased victim. The statement of Rahul Tewari recorded on 15-3-2019, Shubham Tewari recorded on 12-4-2019 and Mahipal Mishra recorded on 20-4-2019, giving description of the offending incident, has been relied upon by the appellant. It is also submitted that there are other criminal cases pending against him. The learned counsel for Respondent-2 accused has however pointed out the delay in recording the witness statements. The accused has been in custody for about seven months. In this case also we find no error or impropriety in exercise of discretion by the High Court in granting bail to the accused Malkhan Singh. The reason why we come to this conclusion is broadly the same as in the previous appeal. This appeal is also dismissed and the order of the High Court is affirmed.?
6. Accused-applicants have no criminal history to their credit. They are not even the residents of the village of the main accused, Indresh Pratap Singh. The role of firing at the deceased has been assigned to all the five accused named in the FIR. Two co-accused have already been enlarged on bail. The trial has progressed and as many as two witnesses of fact have already been examined and examination of third witness is going on.
7. Learned AGA and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail, but not disputed the aforesaid facts.
8. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that role of the accused-applicants is identical to two co-accused have been enlarged on bail and there is no other criminal antecedents, it would be appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicants on bail.
9. Let applicants Vijay Singh and Deepraj Singh be released on bail in the above case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicants shall not try to influence any witness or tamper with the evidence. They will cooperate in the trial proceedings, so that the trial gets concluded at an early date ad directed by this Court earlier.
(ii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.
(iii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of thier absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicants 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 them in accordance with law.
10. Superintendent of Police, Amethi is directed to ensure the safety and security of the witnesses and take all necessary action, which may be required for their protection.
11. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Amethi for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 19.12.2022 Rao/-