Jharkhand High Court
Vishal Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 March, 2021
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra, Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 579 of 2020
Vishal Singh
@ Vishal Kumar Singh ..... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
For the Victim : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
& Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate
--------
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.
--------
I.A. No. 5833 of 20207/ 01.03.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State, as also learned senior counsel for the victim, on the interlocutory application filed by the appellant for granting bail during the pendency of this appeal.
The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302, 341, 353 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case was the result of gang war between two rival groups of criminals, in which the miscreants belonging to one gang had attacked the other gang leader and his associates, in the premises of Civil Courts at Hazaribag, on 2.6.2015, in which, the gangster Sushil Srivastava was killed along with his two associates. According to the prosecution case, on 2.6.2015, Sushil Srivastava, who was in judicial custody, was brought from jail in heavy security for being produced in the Courts of Addl. Sessions Judge-II and Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribag, and it is alleged that at about 10.30 AM, when the police party along with accused reached near Gulmohar tree in the north west corner, indiscriminate firing was made by A.K.-47 rifle on Sushil Srivastava and his associates and a grenade was also exploded by the miscreants. The police also retaliated the firing, but after the incident the miscreants managed to flee away, scaling the boundary wall of the Court premises. In the incident, two associates of Sushil Srivastava died at the spot, and Shshil Srivastava was also badly injured, who died while being taken to hospital. It is alleged that the attacking gang was being headed by the main accused Vikash Tiwari, and the attack was made to take the revenge of murder of their leader Kishore Pandey. Arms, ammunitions and live grenade were -2- recovered from a Bolero vehicle parked there and the remnants of the exploded grenade, A.K.-47 rifle, its magazine and empty cartridges were also recovered.
Initially, this appellant was not named in the FIR, but in course of investigation, his name transpired as one of the conspirators to the occurrence. Two witnesses, namely, P.W.-24 Avik Srivastava and P.W.-25 Deepak Kumar Rao, have named this appellant, as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W.-24 Avik Srivastava, who is the son of the deceased Sushil Srivastava, has named this appellant, to be present at the place of occurrence along with Vikash Tiwari, and other miscreants, and also stating that Vikas Tiwari opened up indiscriminate firing, and the bomb was also exploded, and upon the signal given by Vikas Tiwari, indiscriminate firing was made. Similarly, P.W.-25 Deepak Kumar Rao has also named this appellant as an eyewitness to the occurrence, to be present at the place of occurrence along with Vikas Tiwari. The other eyewitness to the occurrence, particularly, the police witnesses, though have not named this appellant, but they have stated that they could identify the accused persons by face, who were being represented through advocate. The appellant having been granted bail during trial, was always represented through his advocate and he never appeared in the Court when any of those eyewitnesses were being examined. There was no cross-examination to those eyewitnesses, who claimed to have identified all the accused being represented through advocate, challenging the identification of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was granted bail by this Court during trial and he has never misused the privilege of bail. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.-24 Avik Srivastava, who has named the appellant, is none-else than the son of the deceased Sushil Srivastava, and he is a highly interested witness. The presence of other eyewitness, P.W.-25 Deepak Kumar Rao, is absolutely doubtful, inasmuch as, on the date of occurrence itself, his presence was required in connection with other criminal case, in which, application under Section 317 Cr.P.C., was filed on his behalf on the ground of his illness. Learned counsel has submitted that accordingly, no reliance can be placed on these witnesses, and has prayed for bail submitting that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond all doubts, and the appellant was already on bail during the trial, which privilege he never misused.
Learned counsel for the State, as also learned senior counsel for the victim have opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that the presence of this appellant has specifically been stated in the evidence of two eyewitness naming -3- him. It is submitted that other eyewitness to the occurrence, have also claimed to identify all the accused who were represented through their lawyers on the dates of their examinations, but there is nothing in their cross-examination challenging such identification. On all these dates, the appellant was being represented through his advocate. Learned counsel submitted that it is a case of broad daylight murder of three persons due to gang war, in the occurrence which took place amid high security in the Court premises, in which all the miscreants present played active roles in the attack. Learned counsels accordingly, opposed the prayer for bail.
Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the impugned Judgment, we find that two witnesses, who have claimed to be the eyewitness to the occurrence, have named this appellant, stating that he was also present along with main accused Vikas Tiwari, who opened the fire with AK-47 rifle. Grenade was also exploded in the incident. Since there was firing and cross firing between the attacking miscreants and the police, in which grenade was also exploded, active role of the appellant in the incident cannot be ruled out. The evidences of P.W.-24 Avik Srivastava, or of P.W.-25 Deepak Kumar Rao cannot be doubted at this stage, particularly in view of the fact that the other eyewitnesses have claimed to identify the miscreants by face, but the appellant himself avoided to face them in the Court, and the identification was waived. The presence of P.W.-25 Deepak Kumar Rao, cannot be doubted only for the reason that he was represented through application under Section 317 Cr.P.C., on that date, as there is evidence on record that there was a stampede in the Court premises after the occurrence and the people fled away from there, which is but natural. Indeed this was a dreaded broad daylight attack in the Court premises, resulting in triple murder.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, we are not inclined to release the appellant on bail, and accordingly, the prayer for bail stands rejected.
This interlocutory application stands dismissed.
(H. C. Mishra, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.) R.Kr.