Allahabad High Court
Sher Singh Alias Shera vs State Of U.P. on 29 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66909 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7157 of 2025 Applicant :- Sher Singh Alias Shera Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Ganguli,Masoom Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- Prashank Mishra, Virendra Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Rejoinder affidavits filed by applicant are taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Ashutosh Ganguli, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashank Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 105 of 2022, under Sections 396, 412, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Pinahat, District- Agra, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown person with regard to murder of parents of the informant and during investigation, Investigating Officer procured a CCTV footage, which shows that five persons were roaming in the area and thereafter, co-accused Mahendra was identified and when he was arrested and his statement was recorded then he disclosed the name of the applicant and other accused persons.
5. He further submitted that however, as per prosecution, when applicant was arrested then from his possession Rs. 23,000 and one golden pendant were recovered, which were the part of the looted items but entire recovery is totally false. He next submitted that as per prosecution, from the possession of applicant, one country made pistol was also recovered but this recovery is also false and planted one and till date, the alleged recovered country made pistol could not be connected with the instant crime.
6. He further submitted that however, as per prosecution, from the place of incident, fingerprints of culprits were taken and fingerprint of the applicant was matched with the fingerprints, which were taken from the place of incident but as applicant has been made accused after the statement of co-accused Mahendra, therefore, it appears, he has been roped in the present matter by matching his false fingerprint.
7. He further submitted that there is no evidence that applicant ever entered in the house of parents of the informant.
8. He further submitted that co-accused Mangal Singh, from whose possession Rs. 18,000 were recovered, has been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and his bail order has been annexed at page 121 of the paper book.
9. He further submitted that however, bail application of co-accused Mahendra has been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and his bail rejection order has been annexed at page 119 of the paper book but law is settled, there can be no parity of bail rejection order.
10. He further submitted that applicant was not having any previous criminal history and when he was arrested in the present matter then he has also been made accused in two other cases and in the present matter, he is in jail since 08.07.2022 i.e. for last more than two and half years.
11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case of dacoity with murder, in which, two persons died and however, name of applicant was disclosed in the present matter through the statement of co-accused Mahendra but from his possession Rs. 23,000/- and one golden pendant were recovered and at this stage, it cannot be said that this recovery is false and planted one.
12. They further submitted that fingerprints of the applicant were also matched from the fingerprints, which were found on the place of incident.
13. They further submitted that, however, co-accused Mangal Singh has been released on bail but case of applicant is distinguishable from him as fingerprints of co-accused Mangal Singh could not be matched from the fingerprints, which were found at the place of incident.
14. They further submitted that from the possession of co-accused Mahendra also Rs. 23,000/- were recovered, which were the part of looted money and his bail application has been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
15. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.
16. It is a case of dacoity with murder, in which, after committing two murders huge cash and jewellery were looted and during investigation, when applicant was arrested then from his possession part of looted money of Rs. 23,000/- and one golden pendant were recovered.
17. Further record also suggests that fingerprints of the applicant have also been matched from the fingerprints, which were taken from the place of incident and there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve all these evidences at this stage.
18. Further, however, bail application of co-accused Mangal Singh has been allowed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court but case of applicant is distinguishable from him as his fingerprint could not be matched from the fingerprint, which was taken from the place of incident.
19. Further, bail application of co-accused Mahendra has been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and from the possession of co-accused Mahendra also Rs. 23,000/- were recovered.
20. Further, however, in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last two and half years but considering the nature of allegation levelled against him and the facts of the case, in view of this Court, merely on the basis of long incarceration of two and half years, it would not be proper to release the applicant on bail. In view of this Court, there must be some balance in period of incarceration and nature of allegations levelled against the accused person coupled with the punishment provided for the alleged offence.
21. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
22. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is rejected.
23. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 29.4.2025 KK Patel