Allahabad High Court
Netrapal vs State Of U.P. on 31 August, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:141158 Reserved on: 02.07.2024 Delivered on: 31.08.2024 Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16452 of 2024 Applicant :- Netrapal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma,Ram Babu Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Dubey Connected with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10488 of 2024 Applicant :- Nikhit Alias Aditya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Desh Ratan Chaudhary,G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. P.S. Pundir, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rahul Singh Tomar, the learned counsel for applicant-Nikhit @ Aditya, Mr. Ram Babu Sharma, the learned counsel for applicant-Netrapal, the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party-1 and Mr. D.R. Chaudhary, the learned counsel representing first informant.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicant-Nikhit @ Aditya has filed aforementioned repeat application for bail, whereas applicant-Netrapal has filed aforementioned application for bail seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 189 of 2022, under Sections 307, 396, 412 IPC, Police Station-Doghat, District-Baghpat, during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 139 of 2023 (State Vs. Ankit and Others), under Sections 307, 396, 412 IPC, Police Station-Doghat, District-Baghpat, now pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Baghpat.
4. The first bail application of applicant-Nikhit @ Aditya was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 20.09.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32329 of 2023 (Nikhit @ Aditya Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under:-
"Heard Mr. Ram Babu Sharma, the learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Ashutosh Singh and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, the learned counsels representing first informant.
On the matter being taken up, learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant does not wish to press this application for bail.
Accordingly, the present application be dismissed as not pressed.
Learned A.G.A. for State and the learned counsels representing first informant have no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for applicant.
In view of above, the present application for bail is dismissed as not pressed."
5. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that the bail application of co-accused Kalyan has been rejected by this Court, vide order dated 08.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1541 of 2023 (Kalyan Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is extracted herein below:-
"वर्तमान दाण्डिक प्रकीर्ण जमानत प्रार्थना पत्र आवेदक कल्याण की ओर से मु०अ०सं० 189 सन् 2022 अंतर्गत धारा 307, 396 भा०द०वि०, थाना दोघट, जिला बागपत में जमानत पर मुक्त करने हेतु प्रस्तुत किया गया है आवेदक के विद्वान वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता श्री एस०आई० जाफरी व सहयोगी विद्वान अधिवक्ता चन्द्रभान दूबे, परिवादी के विद्वान वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता वी०पी० श्रीवास्तव व सहयोगी विद्वान अधिवक्ता एन०एस० चाहर एवं विद्वान अपर शासकीय अधिवक्ता को सुना तथा पत्रावली का परिशीलन किया।
आवेदक के विद्वान अधिवक्ता ने तर्क प्रस्तुत किया कि आवेदक को इस प्रकरण में गलत व फर्जी तरीके से झूठा फंसाया गया है, उसने कथित अपराध कारित नहीं किया है। आवेदक द्वारा वादी के भाई के साथ मारपीट, जानलेवा हमला नहीं किया गया है। प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट गाँव के मध्य दर्शायी गयी है, जबकि घटना स्थल पर आस-पास का कोई प्रत्यक्षदर्शी साक्षी नहीं दर्शाया गया है। उनका यह भी कथन है कि आवेदक द्वारा मामले में डकैती किसी भी प्रकार से नहीं की गयी है। मृतक का आपराधिक इतिहास है तथा कथित घटना में वादी को कोई चोट नहीं आयी है तथा आवेदक के पास से घटना में संलिप्त करने वाली कोई वस्तु बरामद नहीं हुयी है। आवेदक निर्दोष है तथा दिनांकः 02.09.2022 से कारागार में निरूद्ध है। इसलिए आवेदक को जमानत पर छोड़ दिया जाय।
परिवादी के विद्वान अधिवक्ता एवं विद्वान अपर शासकीय अधिवक्ता ने आवेदक के जमानत का प्रबल विरोध करते हुए तर्क प्रस्तुत किया कि दिनांक 26.07.2022 को वादी मुकदमा अपने भाई शुभम उर्फ मृगेन्द्र के साथ कावड़ देखकर मोटर साइकिल से वापस आ रहा था। करीब रात्रि 08.30 बजे पर बिजेन्द्र प्रधान के कोल्हू से आगे सइयद के पास पहुंचे तो वहां पर गांव के अंकित, कल्याण पुत्र जिले सिंह, नेत्रपाल पुत्र भीम सिंह व दो अज्ञात व्यक्ति मिले जो अपने हाथों में सरिया, लाठी व तमंचे लिये हुए थे। इन्होंने आवेदक के भाई के ऊपर जाने से मारने की नियत से सरिया व लाठी से मारपीट शुरू कर दी। वादी ने शोर मचाया तो मौके पर विनोद व योगेन्द्र व अन्य लोग आ गये। उक्त सभी लोगों द्वारा तमंचो से शुभम के ऊपर जान से मारने की नियत से फायर किये और वादी के ऊपर भी फायर किये, जिसमें वादी को भी चोटे आयी और शुभम गंभीर रूप से घायल हो गया। वादी, गांव वालों की मदद से अपने भाई को जिला अस्पताल बागपत ले गया, जहां चिकित्सों ने उसे मृत घोषित कर दिया। उनका यह भी कथन है कि उक्त घटित होने के उपरांत उसी रात्रि समय 11.31 PM पर घटना के संबंध में वादी द्वारा मुकदमा पंजीकृत कराया गया। ठीक उसी रात्रि/दि० 27.07.2022 को समय 12.40 AM बजे वादी मुकदमा का मेडिकल भी हुआ। जिसके अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि वादी व वादी के भाई शुभम उर्फ मृगेन्द्र (मृतक) के साथ अभियुक्त द्वारा अन्य सहअभियुक्तगण के साथ मिलकर उक्त अपराध कारित कर हत्या करने का प्रयास किया गया। अभियुक्त द्वारा कारित उक्त अपराध गंभीर प्रकृति का है। इसलिए आवेदक को जमानत पर न छोड़ा जाय।
विद्वान अपर शासकीय अधिवक्ता के तर्कों के परिप्रेक्ष्य में पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों के आधार पर आवेदक को जमानत पर मुक्त किए जाने का कोई औचित्य नहीं है तथा यह जमानत आवेदन पत्र निरस्त किए जाने योग्य है।
तद्नुसार वाद को गुण-दोष पर बिना कोई टिप्पणी किए हुए, आवेदक का जमानत आवेदन पत्र निरस्त किया जाता है।"
6. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 26.07.2022 at around 08:30 p.m., a prompt FIR dated 26.07.2022 was lodged by first informant-Ajendra @ Bharat, which was registered as Case Crime No. 189 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC, Police Station-Doghat, District-Baghpat. In the aforesaid FIR, 7 persons namely (1) Ankit, (2) Nikhit, (3) Pradeep, (4) Anuj, (5) Vikas @ Ruda, (6) Kalyan and (7) Netrapal have been nominated as named accused, whereas two unknown persons have also been arraigned as accused.
7. The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is to the effect that named accused armed with Iron Rod (Sariya), Lathi and Country made Gun (Tamancha) assaulted Mrigendra @ Shubham. When the aforesaid criminal act was being committed, shouts were raised upon which, Vinod, Yogendra and various other persons reached the spot. Thereafter, named accused, who were also holding country made pistols in their hand fired gun shots at Shubham as well as the first informant Ajendra @ Bharat on account of which, Shubham sustained grievous injuries, whereas the first informant also sustained injuries. The injured Shubham was taken to District Hospital, Baghpat, where he was declared to be brought dead.
8. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. Investigating Officer, accordingly, arrived at the place of occurrenceand thereafter, recovered the dead body of deceased. The inquest (Panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted on the next day i.e. 27.07.2022 at about 00:30 hours. In the opinion of witnesses of inquest (Panch witnesses), the nature of death of deceased was categorized as homicidal and the cause of death of deceased was said to be gun shot injuries sustained by him. Thereafter, Investigating Officer took steps for getting post mortem of the body of deceased conducted. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted autopsy of the body of deceased, cause of death of deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The Autopsy Surgeon found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased:-
"Ante mortem injury :
1. Gun shot wound of entry Rt face size 1 X 1 cm infront 3 cm Rt ear margin iverted
2. Gun shot wound of entry size 1 X 1 cm at Rt face, 1.5 cm below injury No.1 margins inverted blackening and tattoing ize 10 X 14 cm around both injuries
3. Incised wound size 5 X 1 cm at 1.5 cm above right ear
4. Incised wound 4 X 1.5 cm just behind Rt ear
5. Incised wound 1 X 1 above right ear
6. Gun shot wound of exit size 1.5X 1 cm just at lateral parietal above ear margins everted
7. Gun shot wound of entry 5 X 2 cm at right chest 6 cm below nipple
8. Gun shot entry 2 X 1.5 m below 4 cm injury No.7 margins inverted blackening and tattoing 26 X 20 cm around 6 and 7
9. Gun shot wound of exit 3.5 X 1.5 cm below 2.5 cm Right nipple 10 GS exit wound size 3 X 1.5 at right chest 1 cm below injury 9 lacerated margin
11. Slip GS wound size 3 X 1 cm, 5 cm below right nipple
12.Gun shot wound of entry size 1 X 1 cm at right side 11 cm lateral to midline at middle back.
Margins inverted blackening and tattoiting at 30 X 22 cm area
13. Two abrasions at back
14. Abrasions size 1X 1 cm just below right elbow
15. Two lacerated wound at lt leg anteriorally in area of 6 X 3 cm
16. LW size 2 X 2.5 cm at Rt leg anteriorally 17 Abrasion 8 X 2 cm at outer left thigh Note - Two yellow metallic bullets size 3 cm x 0.7 cm recovered and sealed and handed over to accompanying constable."
9. The injured namely Ajendra @ Bharat (first informant) was also medically examined on 27.07.2022. As per the medico legal report, he sustained following injuries:-
"1. Contusion (bluish in colour) 15 x 11 cm over lateral side of right thigh (upper ½)
2. Abraded contusion 7 x 3 cm over just below right elbow.
3. Complaining of pain over left side front region of abdomen without any visible injury (USG abdomen)
4. Complaining of pain over left side ribs without any visible injury (X-Ray advised left lateral)."
In the opinion of the Doctor, the injured had sustained simple injuries, which could have been caused by hard and blunt object. The duration of injuries was said to be fresh.
10. Having undertaken the aforesaid preliminary exercise, Investigating Officer proceeded to examine witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to find out the veracity of the allegations made in the FIR and also the complicity of named accused and others in the crime in question.
11. At this juncture, Rampal (father of deceased) submitted an application dated 04.08.2022 to the Investigating Officer alleging therein that after having committed the criminality as mentioned in the FIR, the accused also took away the purse and mobile phone of the deceased.
12. Investigating Officer, during course of investigation, examined the following witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.:-
(I). Ajendra @ Bharat (first informant)
(ii). Rampal (father of deceased)
(iii). Vinod (Eye witness mentioned in the FIR)
(iv). Yogendra (Eye witness mentioned in the FIR).
13. All the witnesses referred to above, in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have simply narrated the occurrence as mentioned in the FIR. As such, nothing substantial has emerged in the statements of aforementioned witnesses.
14. Subsequent to above, the second statement of Rampal (father of deceased) was recorded on 04.08.2022 (C.D. Parcha No.-6), whereby this witness has joined the allegations made in the application dated 04.08.2022 filed by him referred to above.
15. On the basis of above, Investigating Officer proceeded to arrest the named accused and they were arrested in the following chronological order:-
(i). Accued-Anuj was arrested on 29.07.2022 (C.D. Parcha No.-4). From the person of aforesaid accused, a .315 bore country made pistol and one live cartridge, which was stuck in the barrel, was recovered.
(ii). Accused-Vikas @ Ruda was arrested on 31.07.2022 (C.D. Parcha No.-5). This witness in his inculpatory confessional statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the Investigating Officer has stated that all the named accused assaulted the deceased. However, Anuj and his associates were assigned the role of firing, whereas this accused assigned to himself the role of assault upon injured and deceased by a Danda.
(iii). Accused-Ankit was arrested on 04.08.2022 (C.D. Parcha No.-7). From the person of this accused, a country made pistol of .315 bore along with two live cartridges and a bag containing the purse and other missing articles of deceased were recovered. This witness, in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, has stated that the mobile phone of deceased was taken out by co-accused Anuj and thereafter, taken away to Delhi.
(iv). Accused Nikhit @ Aditya and Netrapal surrendered before C.J.M, Bhagpat on 17.12.2022 (C.D. Parcha No.-51). These accused in their confessional statements have narrated the same story as disclosed by co-accused Vikas @ Ruda.
(v). Accused-Kalyan was arrested on 02.09.2022. No recovery was made from the person of this accused.
16. Investigating Officer further recorded the statement of Dr. Harish Kumar, who had conducted post mortem of the body of deceased namely Mrigendra @ Shubham. According to this witness, the death of deceased had occurred half day before and rigour-mortise had passed on all over the body.
17. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer, during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that offence complained of is fully established. He, accordingly, submitted the police report (charge sheet) under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the following chronological order;-
(i). Charge Sheet No. 209 of 2022 dated 26.10.2022, whereby named accused Vikas @ Ruda has been charge sheeted under Sections 307, 396 IPC. Since accused Vikas @ Ruda was found to be a juvenile, therefore, aforementioned police report was submitted before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board.
(ii). Charge Sheet No. 209-A of 2022 dated 26.10.2022, whereby three named accused Ankit, who has been charge sheeted under Sections 307, 396, 412 IPC, named accused Anuj and Kalyan, who have been charge sheeted under Sections 307 and 396 IPC.
(iii). Charge Sheet No. 209-B of 2022 dated 24.02.2023, whereby Nikhit @ Aditya and Netrapal have been charge sheeted under Sections 307 and 396 IPC. The charge sheet further records that investigation in respect of co-accused Pradeep son of Kalyan is still pending.
18. Subsequently, named accused Pradeep was arrested on 01.04.2023 (C. D. Parcha No.-62). However, no recovery has been made from the person of aforementioned accused.
19. Investigating Officer submitted the police report No. 209-D of 2023, whereby named accused Nikhit @ Aditya was exculpated in the concerned case crime number (C.D. Parcha No. 79 dated 25.11.2023).
20. Subsequently, an application dated 10.08.2022 (C.D. Parcha No. 67) was submitted by Smt. Bramhlata Devi wife of Netrapal for further investigation. Investigating Officer, thereafter, obtained the leave of Court in terms of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by him during course of investigation i.e. the statements of witnesses examined during course of further investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of named accused Nikhit @ Aditya is not established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the police report dated 25.11.2023, whereby named accused Nikhit @ Aditya was exculpated in the crime in question.
21. The bail application of applicant-Nikhit @ Aditya was filed before this Court and and was registered as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10488 of 2024 (Nikhit @ Aditya Vs. State of U.P.). Considering the fact that there are two contradictory police reports under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. against named accused i.e. Nikhit @ Aditya, this Court passed the following order on 01.04.2024:-
"1. Heard Mr. Rahul Singh Tomar, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. D. R. Chaudhary, the learned counsel representing first informant.,
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicant in court today is taken on record.
3. Applicant was charge-sheeted under the police report dated 27.02.2023 whereas applicant was exculpated in the subsequent police report dated 26.11.2023. In view of above contradictory police reports, court concerned is required to take a decision in the light of law laid down in Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and others (2013) 5 SCC 762.
4. In view of above, the hearing of present bail application is adjourned.
5. Let necessary orders be passed by court concerned in the light of above.
6. Matter shall re-appear as fresh on 02.05.2024."
22. In compliance of above order dated 01.04.2024 passed by this Court, Court below considered the question of discharge of named accused Nikhit @ Aditya and ultimately, vide order dated 13.05.2024 concluded that sufficient material exists on record to proceed against aforementioned accused.
23. Learned A.G.A. submits that as per the case diary, the FSL report in respect of recoveries made from the person of accused has not yet been received.
24. Mr. P.S. Pundir, the learned counsel for applicant-Nikhit @ Aditya submits that though applicant Nikhit @ Aditya is a named and charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Referring to the FIR, it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant that the FIR was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC. However, Investigating Officer during the course of investigation came to the conclusion that no offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC is made out. Accordingly, the aforesaid Sections were expunged. Subsequently, Section 201 IPC was added but the same had also been expunged.
25. It is then submitted that co-accused Ankit son of Netrapal has been charge sheeted under Sections 307, 396 and 412 IPC, whereas all other charge sheeted accused have been charge sheeted under Sections 307, 396 IPC.
26. Referring to the material on record, he submits that upon subsequent investigation, the complicity of this accused was not found to be established in the crime in question. Accordingly, Investigating Officer exculpated this accused in the crime in question.
27. Referring to the confessional statements of the charge sheeted accused, it is urged that all the named accused have assigned the role of firing to named accused Anuj and his associate (Ankit). The recovery of country made pistol as well as belongings of the deceased has been made from the person of aforementioned accuse. It is thus urged that the role of present applicants is clearly distinguishable from named and charge sheeted accused Anuj and his associate Ankit. Applicants cannot be said to be the authors of the gun shot injuries sustained by the deceased. The deceased had sustained 17 ante mortem injuries, out of which, 8 injuries are gun shot injuries. The witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have made general allegations and no explanation has come forward with regard to the incised wounds sustained by the deceased inasmuch as, none of the witnesses has assigned any of the accused with such weapon by which, an incised wound could have been caused. It is thus sought to be urged that the presence of the witnesses at the time and place of occurrence is doubtful and therefore, no credence can be attached to their statements. As such, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
28. Even otherwise, applicant-Nikhit @ Aditya 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 16.12.2022. As such, he has undergone more than 1 year and 7 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, he submits that applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
29. It is lastly contended that though applicant-Nikhit @ Aditya was arrested on 16.12.2022. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. i.e. charge sheet was submitted against applicant only on 24.02.2023. Moreover, the trial of applicant has not yet commenced. It is, thus, contended that the liberty of applicant cannot be curtailed on account of the lackadaisical approach of the prosecution in pursuing the trial. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant-Nikhit @ Aditya submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
30. Mr. Ram Babu Sharma, the learned counsel for applicant-Netrapal has adopted the arguments raised by Mr. P.S. Pundir in support of the bail application of co-accused Nikhit @ Aditya.
31. Even otherwise, applicant-Netrapal 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 16.12.2022. As such, he has undergone more than 1 year and 7 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, he submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
32. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party-1 and and Mr. D.R. Chaudhary, the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since applicants are named and charge sheeted accused, therefore, they do not deserve any indulgence by this Court.
33. Mr. D.R. Chaudhary, the learned counsel representing first informant has then invited the attention of Court to the post mortem report of deceased. On basis thereof, he contends that the deceased had sustained as many as 17 ante mortem injuries, out of which, 8 ante-mortem injuries are gun shot injuries. The role of named and charge sheeted accused in the crime in question is interlinked and intertwined apart from being joint and common. He, therefore, contends that the same is, therefore, incapable or separation or segregation. As such, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicants.
34. It is next contended that applicant-Nikhit @ Aditya was exculpated by the Investigating Officer in the subsequent police report. However, the said conclusion was drawn on the basis of the statements of witnesses, which is based upon heresay evidence. It is on account of above that this Court had passed the order dated 01.04.2024 directing the Court below to take a decision after simultaneously considering both the police reports as is required in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 762. Pursuant to above order, the applicant Nikhit @ Aditya moved a discharge application, which has been rejected by Court below.
35. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for first informant that though the FIR giving rise to these applications for bail was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC but the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation expunged Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC. Investigating Officer had added Section 201 IPC but the same was also expunged. Irrespective of above, the crux of the matter is that all the charge sheeted accused including the applicants have also been charge sheeted under Section 396 IPC i.e. dacoity. On account of the act of named and charge sheeted accused, one person has lost his life. He, therefore, submits that considering the nature and gravity of offence, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicants.
36. It is further submitted that the occurrence in question has been witnessed by three persons namely Ajendra @ Bharat, who is an injured witness, Vinod and Yogendra, who after hearing the shouts came on the spot. All the three witnesses, in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have been consistent qua the prosecution story, which the prosecution set out to prove against accused. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 632, it is urged that the evidence of an injured eye witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. Up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged on the basis of which, the statement of injured eye witness Ajendra @ Bharat could be discarded.
37. It is lastly urged that the bail application of similarly situate and circumstanced co-accused Kalyan has already been rejected by this Court. No such distinguishing feature has emerged in the case of present applicants, on the basis of which, the case of present applicants could be so distinguished from aforementioned co-accused so as to enlarge them on bail. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for first informant thus submits that no exception can be carved out in the case of present applicants. He, thus, concludes by submitting that since no good ground is made out to enlarge the applicants on bail, the present applications for bail are liable to be rejected.
38. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.
39. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of accused, accusations made coupled with the fact that since the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant in opposition to the present applications for bail could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record, therefore, irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants in support of the present applications for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any good or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicants on bail.
40. As a result, the present applications for bail fail and are liable to be rejected.
41. They are, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 31.08.2024 Vinay