Allahabad High Court
Nigam vs State Of U.P. on 7 May, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73712
Reserved On:- 01.05.2025
Delivered On:- 07.05.2025
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27646 of 2024
Applicant :- Nigam
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Tandon
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shikhar Awasthi
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri Shishir Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Shikhar Awasthi, learned counsel for the informant; learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Nigam, with a prayer to release him on bail in Session Trial No. 2016 of 2023 (State of U.P. vs. Nigam and others), relating to Case Crime No. 349 of 2023, under Sections- 302, 307, 352 and 34 IPC, Police Station- Chandpur, District- Bijnor.
3. There is allegation in the F.I.R that on 24.05.2003 brother of informant, Jai Karan, and his sons, Keshav and Reshav, were coming from their filed at 07:30 p.m. In the way they met Nepal, his son, Nigam (applicant). Both attacked them by lathi-danda and incised weapons. To save them wife of Jai Karan, Vimla, his son, Gaurav son of Gajraj and another neighbours and family members reached there to save them and then the applicant, Nigam, with intention to cause murder of the son of informant fired on him. When they were taking to their son to the hospital in car the accused persons were causing injuries by lathi danda to many persons who received injuries. Nepal was exhorting his son, Nigam (applicant) repeatedly to fire on all of us. His wife, Kusum, was also exhorting him accordingly. Son of informant was declared dead in the hospital. Hence, the F.I.R was lodged.
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that there is a cross version of said incident got registered by the brother of applicant, namely, Shubham, by means of application as per Section- 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is alleged therein that Jai Karan, Keshav, Reshav, Vimlesh, Rajveer and Saurabh, armed with country made pistols and lathis came to the house of applicant and started abusing on which, when the father of applicant stopped them they started fighting. Jai Karan exhorted Keshav to kill them and Keshav fired which hit the deceased, Saurabh. In the incident, Smt. Kusum, Nepal and Nigam (applicant) received injuries which were examined on 24.05.2023. Their x-ray was advised but the police did not took them for the same. The aforesaid application has been registered as Complaint Case No. 9351 of 2023. It was dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2024 and Criminal Revision No. 63 of 2024 is pending before the Sessions Judge, Bijnor.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the informant and father of applicant are real brothers. From the site plan, the place of incident is inside the house of applicant, therefore, the other side were the aggressors. The contents of F.I.R and the statements of witnesses are falsified by the site plan. The injuries suffered by Nepal, his wife, Kusum and son, Nigam (applicant) are unexplained and this fact falsifies the prosecution story. The informant side is quite influential and prevented the F.I.R from the applicant's side from being registered. Before the trial court, three prosecution witnesses, including the informant and his son, have been examined, out of 21 witnesses named in the charge sheet. There is property dispute between the close family members which is cause of false implication of applicant. The co-accused, Nepal and his wife, Kusum, were relieved from hospital when they were being treated there for the injuries caused by the informant's side. The applicant is in jail since 25.05.2023 and has criminal history of one case under Sections 323, 504 and 325 IPC lodged by his uncle. Co-accused, Smt. Kusum and Nepal, have already been granted bail by this court. Their bail orders were challenged before the Apex Court but in vain.
6. Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that in the incident in dispute apart from the deceased two other persons suffered grievous and life threatening injuries. He has further submitted that the deceased suffered two fire arm injuries and two lacerated wounds. Informant, Jai Karan, suffered fracture on left clavicle bone, fracture on lower end of right bone and fracture on right temporal bone Keshav suffered lacerated wound on forehead and fracture on right clavicle which were found to be grievous in nature. He has further submitted that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was made by the applicant side only to create a false case after unexplained delay of 20 days. The applicant and other co-accused did not suffered any injuries. As per the site plan the incident occurred on road and not inside the house of applicant. The injury suffered by the accused and applicant and his family members were found to be simple in nature. He has submitted that in the list of witnesses produced by the prosecution, there are only seven prosecution witnesses and five of them have already been examined. Only the doctor and one of investigating officer are to be examined before the trial court and hence there is no justification for enlarging the applicant on bail. He has submitted that the parties are closely related and the property dispute was the cause of murder of one young man by the applicant. The applicant has been assigned the main role and hence the enlargement of co-accused on bail cannot be a ground for enlarging him on bail also.
7. After hearing the rival contentions, this court finds that the informant and other witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case.
8. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of this case, this Court after hearing the learned counsels for the parties does not finds any ground for enlarging the applicant on bail at this stage.
9. The bail application is accordingly, rejected.
10. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible as per Section 309 Cr.P.C (new Section 346 B.N.S.S.).
11. Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within ten days.
Order Date :- 07.05.2025 Rohit