Allahabad High Court
Omendra Yadav @ Mishra vs State Of U.P. on 10 October, 2023
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195397 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38446 of 2023 Applicant :- Omendra Yadav @ Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudarshan Singh,Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28266 of 2023 Applicant :- Ajeet Singh Tomar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudarshan Singh,Atharva Dixit,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29392 of 2023 Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mathur @ Kallu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. and Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40928 of 2023 Applicant :- Jagpal @ Jagga Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Bahadur Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Atharva Dixit, the learned counsel for applicant-Ajeet Singh Tomar, Mr. Sudarshan Singh, the learned counsel for applicant-Omendra Yadav @ Mishra, Mr. Amar Bahadur Maurya, the learned counsel for applicant-Jagpal @ Jagga and the learned A.G.A. for State. No one appears on behalf of applicant-Ashok Kumar Mathur @ Kallu.
2. Perused the record.
3. These applications for bail have been filed by applicants Omendra Yadav @ Mishra, Ajeet Singh Tomar, Ashok Kumar Mathur @ Kallu and Jagpal @ Jagga seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 16 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B, 435, 504, 34 I.P.C., Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 3/25 Arms Act as well as Sections 5/27/30 Arms Act, Police Station-Faridpur, District-Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.
4. It transpires from record that in respect of an incident dated 11.01.2023, a prompt FIR dated 11.01.2023 was lodged by first informant Khajanchi Lal Sharma and was registered as Case Crime No. 0016 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B, 435, 504 IPC, Police Station-Faridpur, District-Bareilly. In the aforesaid FIR, 18 persons namely - (1) Suresh Pal Singh Tomar, (2) Ajeet Pal Singh Tomar, (3) Vipin Singh, (4) Vikas, (5) Rinku, (6) Gendanlal, (7) Pushplal, (8) Surajpal, (9) Suneel, (10) Ajay, (11) Sudheer, (12) Ajay, (13) Rahul, (14) Mukesh, (15) Jagpal @ Jagga, (16) Ram Naresh, (17) Subhash Pathak and (18) Virendra Patahk have been nominated as named accused whereas 10 to 15 unknown persons have already been arraigned as accused. According to the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR, it is alleged that in the incident which occurred on 11.01.2023, named accused assaulted certain persons from the side of the first informant on account of which, Sardar Devendra Singh, Sardar Parmendra Singh and one unknown person died whereas Sardar Surendra sustained serious injuries.
5. Record further shows that in respect of the same incident which is alleged to have occurred on 11.01.2023, a delayed F.I.R. dated 15.01.2022 was lodged by first informant-Aneeta Devi and was registered as Case Crime No. 0019 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B I.P.C., Police Station-Fareedpur, District-Bareilly. In the aforesaid F.I.R., 8 persons namely (1) Parmbeer Singh, (2) Khajanchilal Sharma, (3) Dharm Singh, (4) Rawvendra Yadav, (5) Vikal, (6) Devendra Singh, (7) Parmindra Singh and (8) Surendra Singh have been nominated as named accused whereas 7-8 unknown persons have also been arraigned as accused.
6. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused with a common object are alleged to have committed the crime in question in which named accused Dharam Singh was armed with a Farsa (sharped edged weapon), Rajendra Yadav armed with a sword and a country made gun, Vikal armed with Katar and a country made gun, Devendra Singh, Parmendra Singh, Surendra Singh and 7 to 8 other Sikhs came to the field of the first informant and started firing. The FIR further states that Ravindra Yadav, Vikal, Managar Khajanchi Lal Sharma caught hold one of the persons who had gone with the Jeth of the first informant and thereafter cut him into pieces. Similar assault was committed by Dharam Sinigh, Ravindra Yadav and others who caught hold of the Jeth of the first informant and assaulted him with sharp edge weapons on his head and hands. Dharam Singh was armed with Farsa and he assaulted the Jeth of the first informant on his head. Thereafter gun shots were fired and one person was shot dead by a gun point.
7. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that since there are cross cases in respect of the same occurrence dated 11.01.2023, therefore, the occurrence is admitted to the parties. The real issue to be decided by Court is as to who is the aggressor. Up to this stage, no such material has emerged on the basis of which it could be conclusively concluded as to who is the aggressor.
8. It is next contended that 3 of the named accused namely Nanhey Singh @ Deepak Singh, Sanjay Singh and Rinku Singh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2023 in Case Crime No. 0016 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B, 435, 504 IPC, Police Station-Faridpur, District-Bareilly . For ready reference, their bail orders are reproduced hereinunder:-
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23483 of 2023 (Nanhey Singh @ Deepak Singh Vs. State of U.P.) "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
2. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. There is cross version of the alleged incident, F.I.Rs, from both the sides have been registered. As per the prosecution version the incident took place on 11.01.2023 in which 18 accused persons were named and 10-15 are unknown in the FIR, wherein the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. The present incident took place due to demarcation of land and on free fight the informant's side was aggressor, two persons from each side have lost their lives and two persons of each side have sustained injuries. The recovery of lathi was made from the possession of the co-accused Rinku Singh after a lapse of 16 days without any independent witness and the said recovery is planted one. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.01.2023 having no criminal history. The co-accused Sanjay Singh, Rinku Singh and Sudhir have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 23.05.2023, 30.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 18183 of 2023, 24307 of 2023 and 24162 of 2023 respectively. Learned counsel has next argued that the case of the applicant stands on better footing as compared to the co-accused persons, therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail.
3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
4. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.
5. Let applicant Nanhey Singh @ Deepak Singh involved in Case Crime No.16 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B, 435, 504, 34 I.P.C., and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
I. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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.
II. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
III. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
IV. The applicant 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
6. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted."
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18183 of 2023 (Sanjay Singh Vs. State of U.P.) "1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sudarshan Singh and Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsels for the applicant and Dr.S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.16 of 2023, under Sections 147,148,149, 302, 307, 120B, 435, 504 and 34 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Fareedpur, District Bareilly during pendency of the trial.
3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 11.1.2023 against as many as 18 named accused including applicant and 10-15 unknown persons and according to the FIR on 11.1.2023 at about 1.00 PM in the noon applicant and other accused persons due to dispute of demarcation of the land of the farm house made assault through wooden pieces, axe and country made pistol and opened indiscriminating firing and due to fire and attack made by them Sardar Devendra Singh and Sardar Parvendra Singh and one unknown person have died and Sardar Surendra sustained serious injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegation of making assault and causing injuries against the applicant is totally false and baseless and applicant neither participated in the incident nor he ever caused any injury to anyone. He next submits that on the basis of general allegation applicant has been roped in the present matter along with as many as 30 persons.
5. He further submits that it is a case of free fight and actually informant side was the real aggressor and in the incident although from the side of informant two persons lost their lives and one person sustained injuries but from the the side of applicant also one person died and one person sustained serious injuries. He further submits that from the side of applicant also FIR was lodged against the informant and injured of the case on 15.1.2023 and injured Sardar Surendra Singh in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. admitted that from the side of applicant one Gul Mohammad also died and therefore, there are cross version from both the sides and from both the sides one person each sustained injuries and two persons lost their lives from the side of informant and one person lost his life from the side of applicant and, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant may be enlarged on bail.
6. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 15.1.2023.
7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that it is a case of double murder and applicant and 30 other accused persons made assault through their respective weapons and in the incident fire arms were also used and two persons fro the side of informant lost their lives and one person sustained injuries. He further submits that although from the side of applicant one person died and one person sustained injuries but FIR from the side of applicant was lodged after 4 days while on the other hand, against the applicant informant lodged FIR on the same day, therefore, considering the nature of allegation and evidence available against the applicant on record, applicant should not be released on bail.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
9. Although it is a case of double murder and in the incident two persons lost their lives and one person sustained injuries but it appears from the record that from the side of applicant also one person lost his life and one another sustained injuries and, therefore, it appears to be a case of free fight and who was the real aggressor it can only be decided by the trial court at the time of trial.
10. Further, no specific allegation has been made against the applicant either in the FIR or in the statement of witnesses including the statement of injured Sardar Surendra Singh and on the basis of general allegation applicant has been made accused along with 30 others and even neither in the FIR nor in the statement of witnesses any specific weapon has been assigned to any accused persons including applicant. Further, injured Surendra Singh admitted that from the side of applicant Gul Mohammad died and applicant is not having any previous criminal history.
11 Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
13. Let the applicant-Sanjay Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
14. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
15. 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."
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24307 of 2023 (Rinku Singh Vs. State of U.P. "Heard Sri Shivajee Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Rinku Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 16 of 2023, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B, 435, 504, 34 IPC and section 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act, P.S. Faridpur, District Bareilly.
The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. There is cross version of the alleged incident, both both the sides FIRs have been registered. As per the prosecution version the incident took place on 11.01.2023 in which the applicant along with 18 persons are named and 10-15 are unknown in the FIR. The present incident took place due to demarcation of land and on free fight the informant's side was aggressor, two persons from each side lost their lives and two persons of each side sustained injuries. The recovery of lathi was recovered from the possession of the applicant after a lapse of 16 days without any independent witness is planted one. The case of the applicant is based on the same footing with the case of co-accused Sanjay Singh who has already been released on bail by another bench of the court vide order dated 23.05.2023 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 18183 of 2023. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.01.2023 having no criminal history.
Per contra, learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant- Rinku Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed."
9. It is next contended that co-accused Paramveer Singh involved in Case Crime No. 19 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B I.P.C., Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station-Faridpur, District-Bareilly has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 14.06.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.. 24534 of 2023 (Paramveer Singh Vs. State of U.P.). The same is extracted hereinunder:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 19 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S.-Faridpur, District-Bareilly with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that a First Information Report in Case Crime No.16 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B, 435, 504 and 34 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.-Faridpur, District-Bareilly was lodged by one Khahanchi Lal Sharma against 18 named accused and 10-15 unknown persons and in the aforesaid incident, Sardar Devendra Singh, Sardar Parmendra Singh and one more person died and Sardar Surendra Singh received serious injuries. As a counter blast, an F.I.R. was lodged on 15.1.2023 in Case Crime No.19 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S.-Faridpur, District-Bareilly. In the counter version also the date of incident is 11.01.2023 and along with applicant Khajanchi Lal Sharma, informant in Case Crime No.16 of 2023 and six named accused namely Dharm Singh, Ravindra Yadav, Vikal, Devendra Singh, Parmendra Singh, Surendra Singh and 7-8 unknown persons were implicated. It has been alleged in the FIR that one Gul Mohammad has died in the aforesaid incident. After investigation, Police has submitted charge-sheet in both the cases.
It has been contended that accused-applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. As a counter blast to First Information Report lodged by the applicant side in Case Crime No.16 of 2023, present FIR has been lodged. From perusal of the First Information Report, it is clear that no role has been assigned to the applicant of actually causing the incident and it has been stated that applicant has directed his Manager Khajanchi Lal Sharma on Telephone to commit the crime and as per the First Information Report, telephonic conversation between the applicant and Khajanchi Lal Sharma was heard by the persons present on the side of informant. It has been further contended that the applicant neither participated in the incident nor ever caused any injury to anyone. It has been further submitted that in any case, the incident is of free fight and actually the informant side was the real aggressor and in the incident from the side of applicant, two persons lost their lives and one person sustained serious injuries. From the side of the informant, one person died and one person sustained injuries. It has been further contended that the FIR was lodged by the applicant side on 11.1.2023 whereas the present FIR was lodged after four days of the alleged incident i.e. on 15.1.2023. It is further pointed out that from the side of prosecution Suresh Pal Singh suffered injuries in the alleged incident and his medical examination is said to have been conducted at Sri Siddhi Vinayak Hospital, Bareilly on 14.1.2023 i.e. after three days of the alleged incident. It has also been contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that from the side of informant i.e. accused in Case Crime No.16 of 2023, Sanjay Singh, Nanhe Singh, Rinku Singh and Sudhir have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 23.5.2023, 31.5.2023, 30.5.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18183 of 2023, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23483 of 2023, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.24307 of 2023 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.24162 of 2023 respectively by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court.
Per Contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has submitted that the accused has criminal history but could not deny the fact that the accused in Case Crime No.16 of 2023 have already been granted bail.
In rebuttal, learned Counsel for the applicant stated that prior to 11.12.2021, no criminal case was registered or pending against the applicant. However, on account of the enmity, the applicant has been falsely implicated in several cases. It has been further pointed out by learned Counsel for the applicant that the criminal history has been explained by the applicant in paragraph 25 of the bail application.
The present case appears to the case of free fight in which persons of both sides lost their lives and received injuries. The applicant side has lodged First Information Report on the date of incident whereas present FIR was lodged after three days of the alleged incident. Further from the perusal of the FIR, It is clear that there is no allegation of applicant having participated in the alleged incident and only the allegation is that the applicant has directed/instigated Khajanchi Lal Sharma on telephone to commit this crime. The criminal history has been explained by the applicant therefore considering the facts of the case discussed above in my view, the applicant is entitled to release on bail.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Paramveer Singh in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.
(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail."
10.Accused Ravindra Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 19 of 2023 under Sectiions 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B I.P.C., Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Faridpur, District Bareilly has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 26.07.2023. For ready reference order dated 26.07.2023 is reproduced herein under:
"1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Ravindra Yadav in connection with Case Crime No. 19 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B I.P.C., Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station-Faridpur, District-Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.
4. It transpires from record that in respect of an incident dated 11.01.2023, a prompt FIR dated 11.01.2023 was lodged by first informant Khajanchi Lal Sharma and was registered as Case Crime No. 0016 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B, 435, 504 IPC, Police Station-Faridpur, District-Bareilly. In the aforesaid FIR, 18 persons namely - (1) Suresh Pal Singh Tomar, (2) Ajeet Pal Singh Tomar, (3) Vipin Singh, (4) Vikas, (5) Rinku, (6) Gendanlal, (7) Pushplal, (8) Surajpal, (9) Suneel, (10) Ajay, (11) Sudheer, (12) Ajay, (13) Rahul, (14) Mukesh, (15) Jagpal @ Jagga, (16) Ram Naresh, (17) Subhash Pathak and (18) Virendra Patahk have been nominated as named accused whereas 10 to 15 unknown persons have already been arraigned as accused. According to the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR, it is alleged that in the incident which occurred on 11.01.2023, named accused assaulted certain persons from the side of the first informant on account of which, Sardar Devendra Singh, Sardar Parmendra Singh and one unknown person died whereas Sardar Surendra sustained serious injuries.
5. Record further shows that in respect of the same incident which is alleged to have occurred on 11.01.2023, a delayed F.I.R. dated 15.01.2022 was lodged by first informant-Aneeta Devi and was registered as Case Crime No. 0019 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B I.P.C., Police Station-Fareedpur, District-Bareilly. In the aforesaid F.I.R., 8 persons namely (1) Parmbeer Singh, (2) Khajanchilal Sharma, (3) Dharm Singh, (4) Rawvendra Yadav, (5) Vikal, (6) Devendra Singh, (7) Parmindra Singh and (8) Surendra Singh have been nominated as named accused whereas 7-8 unknown persons have also been arraigned as accused.
6. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused with a common object are alleged to have committed the crime in question in which named accused Dharam Singh was armed with a Farsa (sharped edged weapon), Rajendra Yadav armed with a sword and a country made gun, Vikal armed with Katar and a country made gun, Devendra Singh, Parmendra Singh, Surendra Singh and 7 to 8 other Sikhs came to the field of the first informant and started firing. The FIR further states that Ravindra Yadav, Vikal, Managar Khajanchi Lal Sharma caught hold one of the persons who had gone with the Jeth of the first informant and thereafter cut him into pieces. Similar assault was committed by Dharam Sinigh, Ravindra Yadav and others who caught hold of the Jeth of the first informant and assaulted him with sharp edge weapons on his head and hands. Dharam Singh was armed with Farsa and he assaulted the Jeth of the first informant on his head. Thereafter gun shots were fired and one person was shot dead by a gun point.
7. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that since there are cross cases in respect of the same occurrence dated 11.01.2023, therefore, the occurrence is admitted to the parties. The real issue to be decided by Court is as to who is the agressor. Up to this stage, no such material has emerged on the basis of which it could be conclusively concluded as to who is the agressor.
8. It is next contended that 3 of the named accused namely Nanhey Singh @ Deepak Singh, Sanjay Singh and Rinku Singh in Case Crime No. 0016 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B, 435, 504 IPC, Police Station-Faridpur, District-Bareilly have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. For ready reference, their bail orders are reproduced hereinunder:-
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23483 of 2023 (Nanhey Singh @ Deepak Singh Vs. State of U.P.) "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
2. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. There is cross version of the alleged incident, F.I.Rs, from both the sides have been registered. As per the prosecution version the incident took place on 11.01.2023 in which 18 accused persons were named and 10-15 are unknown in the FIR, wherein the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. The present incident took place due to demarcation of land and on free fight the informant's side was aggressor, two persons from each side have lost their lives and two persons of each side have sustained injuries. The recovery of lathi was made from the possession of the co-accused Rinku Singh after a lapse of 16 days without any independent witness and the said recovery is planted one. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.01.2023 having no criminal history. The co-accused Sanjay Singh, Rinku Singh and Sudhir have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 23.05.2023, 30.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 18183 of 2023, 24307 of 2023 and 24162 of 2023 respectively. Learned counsel has next argued that the case of the applicant stands on better footing as compared to the co-accused persons, therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail.
3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
4. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.
5. Let applicant Nanhey Singh @ Deepak Singh involved in Case Crime No.16 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B, 435, 504, 34 I.P.C., and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
I. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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.
II. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
III. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
IV. The applicant 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
6. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted."
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18183 of 2023 (Sanjay Singh Vs. State of U.P.) "1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sudarshan Singh and Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsels for the applicant and Dr.S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.16 of 2023, under Sections 147,148,149, 302, 307, 120B, 435, 504 and 34 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Fareedpur, District Bareilly during pendency of the trial.
3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 11.1.2023 against as many as 18 named accused including applicant and 10-15 unknown persons and according to the FIR on 11.1.2023 at about 1.00 PM in the noon applicant and other accused persons due to dispute of demarcation of the land of the farm house made assault through wooden pieces, axe and country made pistol and opened indiscriminating firing and due to fire and attack made by them Sardar Devendra Singh and Sardar Parvendra Singh and one unknown person have died and Sardar Surendra sustained serious injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegation of making assault and causing injuries against the applicant is totally false and baseless and applicant neither participated in the incident nor he ever caused any injury to anyone. He next submits that on the basis of general allegation applicant has been roped in the present matter along with as many as 30 persons.
5. He further submits that it is a case of free fight and actually informant side was the real aggressor and in the incident although from the side of informant two persons lost their lives and one person sustained injuries but from the the side of applicant also one person died and one person sustained serious injuries. He further submits that from the side of applicant also FIR was lodged against the informant and injured of the case on 15.1.2023 and injured Sardar Surendra Singh in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. admitted that from the side of applicant one Gul Mohammad also died and therefore, there are cross version from both the sides and from both the sides one person each sustained injuries and two persons lost their lives from the side of informant and one person lost his life from the side of applicant and, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant may be enlarged on bail.
6. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 15.1.2023.
7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that it is a case of double murder and applicant and 30 other accused persons made assault through their respective weapons and in the incident fire arms were also used and two persons fro the side of informant lost their lives and one person sustained injuries. He further submits that although from the side of applicant one person died and one person sustained injuries but FIR from the side of applicant was lodged after 4 days while on the other hand, against the applicant informant lodged FIR on the same day, therefore, considering the nature of allegation and evidence available against the applicant on record, applicant should not be released on bail.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
9. Although it is a case of double murder and in the incident two persons lost their lives and one person sustained injuries but it appears from the record that from the side of applicant also one person lost his life and one another sustained injuries and, therefore, it appears to be a case of free fight and who was the real aggressor it can only be decided by the trial court at the time of trial.
10. Further, no specific allegation has been made against the applicant either in the FIR or in the statement of witnesses including the statement of injured Sardar Surendra Singh and on the basis of general allegation applicant has been made accused along with 30 others and even neither in the FIR nor in the statement of witnesses any specific weapon has been assigned to any accused persons including applicant. Further, injured Surendra Singh admitted that from the side of applicant Gul Mohammad died and applicant is not having any previous criminal history.
11 Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
13. Let the applicant-Sanjay Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
14. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
15. 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."
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24307 of 2023 (Rinku Singh Vs. State of U.P. "Heard Sri Shivajee Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Rinku Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 16 of 2023, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B, 435, 504, 34 IPC and section 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act, P.S. Faridpur, District Bareilly.
The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. There is cross version of the alleged incident, both both the sides FIRs have been registered. As per the prosecution version the incident took place on 11.01.2023 in which the applicant along with 18 persons are named and 10-15 are unknown in the FIR. The present incident took place due to demarcation of land and on free fight the informant's side was aggressor, two persons from each side lost their lives and two persons of each side sustained injuries. The recovery of lathi was recovered from the possession of the applicant after a lapse of 16 days without any independent witness is planted one. The case of the applicant is based on the same footing with the case of co-accused Sanjay Singh who has already been released on bail by another bench of the court vide order dated 23.05.2023 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 18183 of 2023. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.01.2023 having no criminal history.
Per contra, learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant- Rinku Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed."
9. It is next contended that co-accused Paramveer Singh in Case Crime No. 19 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B I.P.C., Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station-Faridpur, District-Bareilly has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 14.06.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.. 24534 of 2023 (Paramveer Singh Vs. State of U.P.). The same is extracted hereinunder:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 19 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S.-Faridpur, District-Bareilly with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that a First Information Report in Case Crime No.16 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B, 435, 504 and 34 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.-Faridpur, District-Bareilly was lodged by one Khahanchi Lal Sharma against 18 named accused and 10-15 unknown persons and in the aforesaid incident, Sardar Devendra Singh, Sardar Parmendra Singh and one more person died and Sardar Surendra Singh received serious injuries. As a counter blast, an F.I.R. was lodged on 15.1.2023 in Case Crime No.19 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S.-Faridpur, District-Bareilly. In the counter version also the date of incident is 11.01.2023 and along with applicant Khajanchi Lal Sharma, informant in Case Crime No.16 of 2023 and six named accused namely Dharm Singh, Ravindra Yadav, Vikal, Devendra Singh, Parmendra Singh, Surendra Singh and 7-8 unknown persons were implicated. It has been alleged in the FIR that one Gul Mohammad has died in the aforesaid incident. After investigation, Police has submitted charge-sheet in both the cases.
It has been contended that accused-applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. As a counter blast to First Information Report lodged by the applicant side in Case Crime No.16 of 2023, present FIR has been lodged. From perusal of the First Information Report, it is clear that no role has been assigned to the applicant of actually causing the incident and it has been stated that applicant has directed his Manager Khajanchi Lal Sharma on Telephone to commit the crime and as per the First Information Report, telephonic conversation between the applicant and Khajanchi Lal Sharma was heard by the persons present on the side of informant. It has been further contended that the applicant neither participated in the incident nor ever caused any injury to anyone. It has been further submitted that in any case, the incident is of free fight and actually the informant side was the real aggressor and in the incident from the side of applicant, two persons lost their lives and one person sustained serious injuries. From the side of the informant, one person died and one person sustained injuries. It has been further contended that the FIR was lodged by the applicant side on 11.1.2023 whereas the present FIR was lodged after four days of the alleged incident i.e. on 15.1.2023. It is further pointed out that from the side of prosecution Suresh Pal Singh suffered injuries in the alleged incident and his medical examination is said to have been conducted at Sri Siddhi Vinayak Hospital, Bareilly on 14.1.2023 i.e. after three days of the alleged incident. It has also been contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that from the side of informant i.e. accused in Case Crime No.16 of 2023, Sanjay Singh, Nanhe Singh, Rinku Singh and Sudhir have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 23.5.2023, 31.5.2023, 30.5.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18183 of 2023, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23483 of 2023, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.24307 of 2023 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.24162 of 2023 respectively by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court.
Per Contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has submitted that the accused has criminal history but could not deny the fact that the accused in Case Crime No.16 of 2023 have already been granted bail.
In rebuttal, learned Counsel for the applicant stated that prior to 11.12.2021, no criminal case was registered or pending against the applicant. However, on account of the enmity, the applicant has been falsely implicated in several cases. It has been further pointed out by learned Counsel for the applicant that the criminal history has been explained by the applicant in paragraph 25 of the bail application.
The present case appears to the case of free fight in which persons of both sides lost their lives and received injuries. The applicant side has lodged First Information Report on the date of incident whereas present FIR was lodged after three days of the alleged incident. Further from the perusal of the FIR, It is clear that there is no allegation of applicant having participated in the alleged incident and only the allegation is that the applicant has directed/instigated Khajanchi Lal Sharma on telephone to commit this crime. The criminal history has been explained by the applicant therefore considering the facts of the case discussed above in my view, the applicant is entitled to release on bail.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Paramveer Singh in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.
(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail."
10. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that up to this stage, the issue as to which party is the aggressor could not be established and coupled with the fact that some of the named accused, in both the FIRs, have already been enlarged on bail, therefore, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
11. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 16.01.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 5 months of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
12. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is named accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.
13. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned AGA for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, complicity of applicant, accusations made, the nature and gravity of offence and coupled with the fact that in respect of the incident dated 11.01.2023, there are cross cases, as such, the occurrence is admitted to the parties. However, up to this stage, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such material from the record on the basis of which, it could be conclusively concluded as to who is the aggressor. Some of the named accused from from both the sides have already been enlarged on bail, there is no such material point out by the learned A.G.A. up to this stage. On the basis of which, the case of present applicant could be so distinguished so as to deny him bail but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
14. Accordingly, present application for bail is allowed.
15. Let the applicant-Ravindra Yadav, be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
16. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 26.07.2023"
11. Above order dated 26.07.2023 was corrected on 04.08.2023. The same is extracted herein under:
"Order on Correction Application No.1 of 2023.
Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
This correction application has been filed by applicant-Ravindra Yadav seeking correction in the order dated 26.07.2023.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that in paragraph 11 of the above order dated 26.07.2023, it has been wrongly transcribed "Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one". Referring to paragraph 25 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, he submits that criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained. He, therefore, contends that aforesaid sentence occurring in paragraph 11 of the order dated 26.07.2023 be deleted and in place thereof the above-mentioned facts be incorporated accordingly.
Prayer made by the learned counsel for applicant is bona-fide. Same is not opposed by the learned A.G.A.
Accordingly it is allowed.
It is thus provided that the sentence "Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one" occurring in the Ist and IInd line of paragraph 11 of the order dated 26.07.2023 shall stand deleted and in place thereof it shall be read that "though the applicant has criminal history to his credit but the same has been duly explained in paragraph 25 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application".
This correction shall from part of the earlier order dated 26.07.2023.
With the aforesaid directions, this correction application stands finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 4.8.2023. "
12. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants contends that up to this stage, the issue as to which party is the aggressor could not be established and coupled with the fact that some of the named accused, in both the FIRs, have already been enlarged on bail, therefore, applicants are also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
13. Even otherwise, applicants are men of clean antecedents inasmuch as they have no criminal history to their credit except the present one. Applicant Omendra Yadav @ Mishra is in jail since 07.03.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 7 months of incarceration. Applicant Ajeet Singh Tomar is in jail since 22.01.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 8 months of incarceration. Applicant Ashok Kumar Mathur @ Kalu is in jail since 18.01.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 8 months of incarceration. Applicant Jagpal @ Jagga is in jail since 06.04.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 6 months of incarceration. In case, applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. It is thus urged that applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail.
14. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicants are named and charge sheeted accused, therefore, they do not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.
15. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned AGA for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, complicity of applicant, accusations made, the nature and gravity of offence and coupled with the fact that in respect of the incident dated 11.01.2023, there are cross cases, as such, the occurrence is admitted to the parties. However, up to this stage, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such material from the record on the basis of which, it could be conclusively concluded as to who is the aggressor. Some of the named accused from both the sides have already been enlarged on bail, there is no such material pointed out by the learned A.G.A. up to this stage. On the basis of which, the case of present applicant could be so distinguished so as to deny them bail but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicants have made out a case for bail.
16. Accordingly, these applications for bail are allowed.
17. Let the applicants-Omendra Yadav @ Mishra, Ajeet Singh Tomar, Ashok Kumar Mathur @ Kallu and Jagpal @ Jagga, be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.
(ii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS 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 IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANTS 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.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
18. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 10.10.2023 YK