Allahabad High Court
Sanam Alias Mange vs State Of U.P. on 29 July, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125678 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46864 of 2023 Applicant :- Sanam Alias Mange Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shikhar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Deepak Dubey,G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. Heard Sri Shikhar Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.
2. This bail applicationhas been filed by the applicant- Sanam Alias Mange, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 344 of 2018, under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 506, 120B/302, 120B/307 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi.
3. The First Information Report of the present matter was lodged on 21.07.2018 at 21:57 hours by Sanchit Verma against Sonu Geda, Rinku Geda, Bobby Geda, Angad Gurjar, Prahlad Gurjar, Udham Gurjar, Rajendra Gurjar, Shivam Gurjar and Pushpendra Gurjar for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 506 I.P.C. for an incident which took place on 21.07.2018 at about 1:30 hours with the allegation that he and his father Sanjay Verma went to the District Court on 21.07.2018 at about 11.00 AM. Date in the matter of his father was fixed in the court of District Judge, Jhansi and one date was fixed in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division). His father after attending the date in the court came out at about 1:30 PM and was going on his Pajero Sports vehicle having registration No. UP-93-AN 6301 which was being driven by Ravi Verma. Along with his father his security personnel Jai Goswami resident of Jhansi, Sunil Kushwaha resident of Jhansi were also present. After that the first informant was following them on his motorcycle which was being driven by Ajay Soni. As soon as the vehicle of his father reached the crossing and started moving towards the bus stand a truck was standing there near a temple since before having registration No. UP-93 T 8047 and a loader having No. UP 93T 3437 was also standing, the shelter of which was taken by the accused who all of a sudden exhorted along with 2-3 unknown persons having country-made pistols in their hand and resorted to indiscriminate firing after surrounding them from all sides. From firing the driver received injury and thus the vehicle rammed in the loader & truck standing there and from the firing his father, Sanjay Verma and all persons sitting in the vehicle received serious and fatal injures. The incident was seen by the first informant, Gaurav Verma and other persons. The assailants while resorting to firing in the air and extending threats ran towards the bus stand on their motorcycles. There was lot of commotion at the place and fear spread in the area after which they closed their establishments and ran away. The people on the road also ran away. The injured were immediately taken to medical college Jhansi by the first informant and the other persons where they are being treated. At the time of they being admitted in the hospital the doctor declared Jai Goswami to be dead. Rinku Geda, Sonu Geda, Sardar Singh and others had murdered Ajay Verma his chacha in which the Allahabad High Court had affirmed their conviction and Maan Singh had filed a writ in Supreme Court which was dismissed and the pairvi of the said matters was done by his father due to which the accused persons many times earlier also in a planned manner tried to attack him but did not succeed but today the accused persons together in a daylight manner attacked his father. A report be lodged and action be taken. Deepak Kumar Soni was the scribe of the written report.
4. Jai Prakash Goswami is the deceased in the matter. His postmortem examination was conducted on 22.07.2018 at 11:45 AM. In his postmortem report the doctor has noted that he was brought dead on 21.07.2018 at 2:30 PM in Medical College Emergency, Jhansi. The injuries as noted in the postmortem examination are under the head "Gun Shot Injuries" which in total are reported as 11 injuries. A perusal of the same would go to show that the injury nos. i to viii are wounds of entry and the injury nos. ix to xi are exit wounds. Metallic pellets were recovered from the dead body of the deceased which are noted in the postmortem examination report to be sealed and are noted to be seven in number. The cause of death has been opined as shock & haemorrhage due to ante-mortem gun shot injury.
5. Three persons namely Sanjay Verma, Ravi Verma and Sunil Kushwaha are the injured persons in the present incident. Sanjay Verma was found to have received a single injury. Ravi Verma was found to have received two injuries on his body being on the back of skull mid area and the other on the left upper limb at wrist and both the injuries were opined to be due to firearm injuries. Sunil Kushwaha was found to have received three injuries on his body being at the right nipple left side, back right mid area and right wrist left laterally and all the injuries were opined to be due to firearm injuries.
6. The investigation concluded with filing a charge sheet against co-accused Rajendra Gurjar being charge sheet No. 311/2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 IPC but the investigation was kept pending with regards to other accused persons. Subsequently, a supplementary charge sheet was submitted against Prahlad Gurjar, Sagar Rana and Rohit @ Rohitas on 12.11.2018 and the investigation was kept pending for other accused persons.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. It is submitted that the naming of the applicant in the present matter is by co-accused Sagar Rana who after arrest in his confessional statement has named the applicant as one of the accused. It is submitted that Sagar Rana has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26.02.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5901 of 2020 (Sagar Rana Vs. State of U.P.). The said order has been placed before the Court which is at page-151 of the paper book. It is further submitted while placing the supplementary affidavit dated 21.11.2024 that the perusal of the statements of P.W.-1 Sanchit Verma, P.W.-2 Sanjay Verma and P.W.-3 Ravi Verma would go to show that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. It is submitted that no test identification parade was conducted in the present matter which would give credible evidence regarding the participation of the applicant in it. While placing paragraph number 31 of the affidavit in support of the bail application, it is submitted that initially it was disclosed that the applicant is involved in seven criminal cases and thus the same were disclosed and explained therein but after the filing of short counter affidavit on behalf of the first informant it was disclosed therein that the applicant is involved in 15 criminal cases including the present case and thus reply to all the said cases has been given as its explanation in paragraph-10 of the said rejoinder affidavit. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 07.11.2020 and the trial is still pending and thus he be granted bail. It is further submitted that co-accused Rohit @ Rohtash has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.06.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15563 of 2020 (Rohit @ Rohtash Vs. State of U.P.), the copy of which is annexed at page-158 of the affidavit, co-accused Prahlad Gurjar has also been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.07.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1892 of 2019 (Prahlad Gurjar Vs. State of U.P.) and co-accused Gaurav @ Monty has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.02.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5153 of 2020 (Gaurav @ Monty Vs. State of U.P.), the copy of which is at page number 164 of the paper book. It is submitted that as such the applicant be enlarged on bail.
8. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is a hardened criminal and a professional shooter and is involved in 15 cases including the present case which have been stated in paragraph-9 of his short counter affidavit dated 04.04.2025. It is submitted that initially there was concealment of the actual criminal history of the applicant inasmuch as in the affidavit in support of the bail application in paragraph-31 it was stated that the applicant has criminal history of 7 cases which were explained therein but as a matter of fact apart from the present case, he was involved 14 criminal cases which have been disclosed in the short counter affidavit and then in its rejoinder affidavit, the same has been explained. It is further submitted that the applicant had absconded for a period of 2 years inasmuch as his complicity in the matter surfaced on 08.08.2018 after which he absconded and then was arrested on 07.11.2020 and during the period of his abscondence proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C were initiated against him and also a cash reward of Rs. 25,000/- was declared on him. It is submitted further that even charge sheet was submitted against the applicant as an absconder. It is submitted that in the trial, the last witness being the Investigating Officer remains to be examined and thus the trial is at an advance stage and is also proceeding diligently since the Apex Court has expedited it. It is submitted further while placing paragrpah-5 of the short counter affidavit that during the period of abscondence the applicant had indulged in one other case of firing on police regarding which a F.I.R was lodged as Case Crime No. 2013 of 2019, P.S. Kharkhauda, District Sonipat. Further while placing paragraph-8 of the said short counter affidavit, it is submitted that the applicant had threatened Ajay Soni an eye witness and an injured witness in the Court while he had appeared on the date fixed in the present matter, after which he gave an application to the said trial court concerned on which a compliant was lodged against the applicant on the directions of the trial court. It is submitted that the applicant was even previously involved in the year 2019 in a case under Section 302 I.P.C in Haryana and also in a case under the same section in Delhi and thus this is the third case of his involvement under Section 302 I.P.C. It is further submitted that bail of co-accused Sonu Gaida Alias Sachin Gupta has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 54722 of 2023 (Sonu Gaida @ Sahin Gupta Vs. State of U.P.) against which a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 36003 of 2025 (Sonu Gaida Alias Sachin Gupta Vs. State of U.P.) was filed before the Apex Court which has also been dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2025. It is submitted that the criminal history of the applicant shows that the cases in which he is involved are serious offence including a case under the Gangsters Act. It is submitted that the present case is the third case under Section 302 I.P.C. of the involvement of the applicant.
9. Learned counsel for the State also vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant had criminal history of 15 cases including the present case which are cases of serious nature. It is submitted further that the applicant absconded and even a reward of Rs. 25,000/- was declared on him since he had absconded. It is submitted that an F.I.R under Section 174A I.P.C was lodged against the applicant since he had absconded in the present matter and a charge sheet has been submitted against him as an absconder. It is submitted that other arguments of the learned counsel for the first informant are reiterated.
10. In response to the arguments of the learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in so far as the abscondence is concerned the same has been explained in paragraph-4 of his rejoinder affidavit dated 13.05.2025 and the perusal of which would go to show that the applicant did not abscond but was arrested in another case on 27.08.2019 and then was taken into custody in the present case. It is further submitted while placing paragraph-9 of the said rejoinder affidavit that the applicant never threatened anyone before the trial court and the said allegations are with malafides. It is further submitted that at the inception the entire criminal history of the applicant was not disclosed by the deponent of the bail application but after the filing a short counter affidavit the entire criminal history was disclosed therein and then in paragraph-10 of the rejoinder affidavit detailed explanation has been given which would go to show that the applicant is involved in 15 cases including the present case and in the other cases he has already been granted bail and thus it would show that there is false implication of the applicant.
11. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the implication of the applicant in the present matter has surfaced during investigation, the applicant then absconded and it was only after two years he was apprehended in the present matter; charge sheet against him was submitted as an absconder; a F.I.R was lodged against him under Section 174A I.P.C as he had absconded, a cash reward was also declared on him since he had absconded; he has criminal history of 14 other cases. No ground for bail is made out. Bail of co-accused has been rejected by this Court against which an appeal has also been rejected by the Apex Court.
12. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 29.7.2025 PS