Allahabad High Court
Sampurnanand @ Kale Aneja vs State Of U.P. on 18 November, 2022
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47706 of 2022 Applicant :- Sampurnanand @ Kale Aneja Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Kanojia,Swetashwa Agarwal HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL,J.
1. Heard Shri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Akash Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Om Prakash Gupta, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 612/2022, under Sections 386, 323, 506, 387, 120-B IPC and section 27 of Arms Act, 1959, Police Station- Sihani Gate, District - Ghaziabad.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submits that the FIR has been lodged with an inordinate delay of nearly 2 months without there being any plausible explanation for the same; the FIR has been lodged as a second thought with false and frivolous allegations; no case under section 386 of IPC is made out as no money has been transferred; the applicant does not have any previous criminal history; the applicant is known to the informant and there is no enmity with the informant; the applicant has been implicated in the present case in collusion with the informant; no motive has been assigned for the alleged incident. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant may flee from the course of law or may, otherwise, misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is in jail since 22.09.2022 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is very bleak.
4. Learned A.G.A. as well as the learned counsel for the informant have, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the incident of threat to life and extortion was made by the accused - applicant along with his gangmen, which was witnessed by one Pradeep Kumar Sharma and Amit Chaudhary, who were also manhandled and subjected to harassment; they also supported the prosecution case in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C.; during recovery, a licenced revolver of 32 bore along with 12 cartridges were recovered from the possession of the applicant and in his confessional statement, he confessed having given the contract for doing away with the informant; in the statement under 161 Cr.P.C., one Sanjeev Tyagi provided the details of telephonic conversation with the accused - applicant; wherein, the factum of contract killing through a hired shooter was disclosed; there is a clinching evidence on record to establish the commission of offence by the applicant beyond reasonable doubt; the shooter Jitendra Tyagi has confessed that an advance payment of Rs. 1 lac was given to him by the accused applicant to eliminate the informant; the gangmen of the accused - applicant, namely; Amit Gadhwali and Yogesh, are still absconding and cannot be located by the Police; there are conclusive and credible evidence indicating the clear complicity of the applicant in the offence as he hired a contract killer, namely, Jitendra Tyagi, for committing the murder of the informant, which stands fortified from the audio recording obtained by the Police from the mobile conversation between the accused - applicant and one Sanjeev Tyagi (witness); therefore, considering the chain of evidence against the applicant, gravity of offence, severity of the punishment and attending circumstances of the case, the present bail application is liable to be rejected.
6. A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the informant reiterating the submissions made above. In reply to the said short counter affidavit, a rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant denying the allegations made in the short counter affidavit.
7. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the applicant is named in the FIR; in the FIR, it has been alleged that the applicant has demanded a sum of Rs. 20 lac as extortion and in event of failure to do so, threat of contract murder has been made; in the statement of the informant under section 161 Cr.P.C., he has supported the version of the FIR; in the statement of Sanjeev Tyagi under section 161 Cr.P.C., the mobile conversion between Sanjeev Tyagi and the accused has been recorded, in which the accused has admitted that in the event of failure to give extortion money, threat of contract killing has been made; the offence of the accused appears to be grievous in nature; therefore, prima facie, it appears that the applicant has a role in the entire incident.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, no case for bail is made out. Therefore, the prayer for bail is declined and the bail application is rejected.
9. However, the learned lower court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, keeping in view the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :-18/11/2022 Amit Mishra (Piyush Agrawal,J.)