Allahabad High Court
Sujit Singh vs State Of U.P. on 5 April, 2023
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9732 of 2023 Applicant :- Sujit Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Chaubey,Akhand Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Subedar Shukla Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised. This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 22.7.2022.
2. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Subedar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 141 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 307 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Bardah, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the named accused persons Akash, Ashish, Satyasheel @ Pappu, Ghanshyam and Ashutosh are stated to have entered into an altercation with the informant over the passage of water through a drain on 27.6.2021. The same evening at about 7.30 pm, the named accused persons are stated to have barged into the house of the informant and fired indiscriminately on them, thereby causing injuries to three persons Sudhir Tiwari, Akhilesh Tiwari and Anoop Tiwari, of which Anoop Tiwari is said to have expired on the spot while Sudhir Tiwari is stated to have succumbed to injuries during treatment. The third injured person Akhilesh Tiwari could survive.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has further stated that the FIR does not mention any other person except the named five accused persons and neither it was referred that there was some other unknown persons in it. Learned counsel has next stated that later on, in the statement of the informant recorded the same day, the name of the applicant and some other accused persons have been added, whereafter, in all, the number of accused persons has come out to be ten. Learned counsel has next stated that the said names have been added after due deliberations and consultations. Learned counsel has stated that had the applicant been one of the assailants, his name would have come up at the time of lodging of the FIR itself, which is too prompt. Learned counsel has submitted that the statement of the injured person Akhilesh Tripathi, was recorded later on and he has one more person to be the assailant. Learned counsel has next submitted that of the persons added, the co-accused person Ashish Tiwari has been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.2.2023 passed in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56546 of 2022. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel has next stated that the prosecution story stands falsified on the count that all the three injured persons of which two have expired, had sustained only one firearm injury each. Learned counsel has next stated that had the assailants fired the way the prosecution story stands, they would have sustained much more firearm injury. Learned counsel has also stated that there is a false recovery of a country made pistol foisted on the applicant. Learned counsel has fairly conceded the fact that the bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.7.2022 passed in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39838 of 2021 by a common order with respect to five accused persons. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant is entitled to bail on account of the judgement of this Court passed in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938. Learned counsel has also stated that the said parity is drawn from Article 14 of the Constitution of India, whereby even the personal liberty of the applicant stands violated as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no previous criminal history of the applicant except two more cases foisted at the time of arrest in the present subject matter, that too in a case of police party firing and a country made pistol has been foisted on him. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.7.2021. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the bail of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that the three witnesses of fact have been examined in Court and all have nominated the applicant therein. Learned A.G.A. has stated that the applicant has a criminal history of five cases and he is not entitled for bail.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and taking into consideration the fact that the name of the applicant has come up later on during the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the applicant is not named in the FIR and also the fact that the co-accused person Ashish Tiwari, whose case is on a similar footing to that of the applicant, has been enlarged on bail, and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha (supra) and the judgement passed by the Apex Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, without expressing any opinion on the 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 on the ground of parity.
9. Let the applicant- Sujit Singh involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
ii. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
iv. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
v. 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
11. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 5.4.2023 Shalini