Allahabad High Court
Gulveer Chhaunkar vs State Of U.P. on 24 July, 2023
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:146487 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28830 of 2023 Applicant :- Gulveer Chhaunkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Chahar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Manish Tewari, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kuldeep Singh Chahar, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel representing first informant as well as Mr. Mohammad Khalid who has also put in appearance on behalf of first informant by filing his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.
2. Perused the record.
3. Instant bail application has been filed by applicant-Gulveer Chhaunkar seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.712 of 2022 under Sections, 147, 148, 149, 323, 307,302, 352, 504, 506, 120B I.P.C., Police Station-Iglass District-Aligarh during the pendency of trial.
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 27.11.2022 a delayed F.I.R. dated 28.11.2022 was lodged by first informant-Mahendra Singh (father of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No.712 of 2022 under Sections, 147, 148, 149, 307,302, 323, 504, 506, 352 I.P.C., Police Station-Iglass District-Aligarh. In the aforesaid F. I.R., eight persons namely Devendra Pradhan, Kartik, Harveer, Gulveer, Tejveer Singh, Premveer, Indrapal and Rahul have been nominated as named accused.
5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused with a common object assaulted the sons of first informant namely Devjeet and Surendra on account of which they sustained injuries. Hearing the shout from the place of occurrence, the first informant is alleged to have reached the place of occurrence.
6. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged one of the injured namely Devjeet succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. Thereafter, inquest (panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted. In the opinion of the witnesses of inquest (panch witnesses), the nature of death of deceased was characterised as homicidal. Subsequent to above, the post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy of the body of the deceased opined that cause of death of deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.
7. The Autopsy Surgeon found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-
"i. Abrasion with ... swelling of size 3cm x 1cm over left side forehead, 2 cm above from left eye brow.
ii. traumatic swelling of size 2 cm x 1 cm over right side forehead, 1 cm above from right brow.
iii. Abrasion of size 1 cm x 1 cm over right hand, 3 cm above from right elbow.
iv. Abrasion of size 3cm x 2 cm over right thigh, 11 cm above from right knee.
v. Lacerated wound of size 2cm x 1 cm over right foot, 8cm below from right knee.
vi. Lacerated wound of size 1 cm x 1 cm over left foot, 17 cm below from left knee.
7. After completion of statutory investigation in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C., Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 21.02.2023 whereby all the named accused have been charge-sheeted.
8. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava as well as Mr. Mohammad Khalid, the learned counsel representing first informant contends that bail application of co-accused Premveer Singh has been rejected by this Court by means of an order dated 12.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.25926 of 2023 (Premveer Singh Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 12.07.2023 is reproduced herein-under:-
" Heard Shri Jai Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Mohd. Khalid, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned AGA for the State.
By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 712 of 2022 at Police Station Iglas District Aligarh under Sections 147,148,149,120B,307,302, 352, 504, 506 and 120B I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 13.02.2023.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned trial court on 22.03.2023.
The applicant has been identified as one of the principal offenders who brutally assaulted the victim resulting in his death and one victim being grievously injured. The injury report as well as the statement of the eye injured witnesses support the prosecution case. The evidence in the record shows that there was common project to commit the offence. The offence is grave. There is likelihood that the applicant had committed the offence. At this stage, no case for bail is made out.
It has been informed that two of the co-accused persons namely Kartik and Tejveer Singh had enlarged on bail. Their cases are distinguishable inasmuch as they were enlarged on bail on the footing that they had caused injuries by a rod and tamancha respectively. No injuries by the aforesaid weapons were found on the body of the deceased or injured. Secondly as far as two other co-accused namely Lavkush Chhonker and Dinesh Chandra are concerned who too have been granted bail. The said co-accused did not participate in the assault and helped the accused to escape.
Without going into the merits of the case, the bail application is dismissed.
Considering the gravity of the offence, interest of justice will be served by directing the learned trial court to expedite the trial within a stipulated period of time.
The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The learned trial court shall proceed with the hearing on a day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated timeline of one year is strictly adhered to. All witnesses and counsels are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings.
The trial court has also to be conscious of the rights of the accused persons and is under obligation of law to ensure that all expeditious, necessary and coercive measures as per law are adopted to ensure the presence of witnesses. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel.
The learned trial court shall issue summons by regular process as per Section 62 Cr.P.C. and also by registered post as contemplated under Section 69 Cr.P.C. to expedite the trial.
The learned trial court shall promptly take out all strict coercive measures against all the witnesses in accordance with law who fail to appear in the trial proceeding. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel.
The police authorities shall ensure that warrants or any coercive measures as per law taken out by the learned trial court to ensure that the attendance of the witnesses are promptly executed.
The Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh shall file an affidavit before the trial court on the date fixed regarding status of execution of the warrants/service of summons taken out by the learned trial court.
In case there is a failure on part of the police authorities to execute the warrants or other coercive measures, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh shall state the reasons for the same in the said affidavit and also show the steps taken to execute the warrants. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh shall simultaneously inform the Additional Director General of Police (ADG) Agra Zone, about the aforesaid failure of the police authorities in the first instance to execute the warrants and coercive measures issued by the learned trial court. If required, the Additional Director General of Police (ADG) Agra Zone, may issue an appropriate directions to ensure that the warrants issued are promptly executed by the learned trial court.
The delay in execution of warrants and consequent absence of witnesses is one of the principal causes of delays in criminal trials and has to be addressed effectively by all stakeholders.
The trial judge shall submit a fortnightly report on the progress of trial and the steps taken to comply with this order to the learned District Judge.
A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial judge through the learned District Judge, Aligarh by the Registrar (Compliance) by FAX.
Order Date :- 12.7.2023 "
9. It is then contended that bail application of another co-accused Rahul has also been rejected by this Court by means of order dated 12.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.25825 of 2023 (Rahul Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 12.07.2023 is reproduced herein-under:-
"Heard Shri Abhishek Mayank, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Mohd. Khalid, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned AGA for the State. By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 712 of 2022 at Police Station Iglas District Aligarh under Sections 147,148,149,120B,307,302, 352, 504, 506 and 120B I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 2.12.2022.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned trial court on 27.04.2023.
The applicant has been identified as one of the principal offenders who brutally assaulted the victim resulting in his death and one victim being grievously injured. The injury report as well as the statement of the injured witness supports the prosecution case. The evidence in the record shows that there was common project to commit the offence. The offence is grave. There is likelihood that the applicant had committed the offence. At this stage, no case for bail is made out.
It has been informed that two of the co-accused persons namely Kartik and Tejveer Singh had enlarged on bail. Their cases are distinguishable inasmuch as they were enlarged on bail on the footing that they had caused injuries by a rod and tamancha respectively. No injuries by the aforesaid weapons were found on the body of the deceased or injured. Secondly as far as two other co-accused namely Lavkush Chhonker and Dinesh Chandra are concerned who too have been granted bail. The said co-accused did not participate in the assault and helped the accused to escape.
Without going into the merits of the case, the bail application is dismissed.
Considering the gravity of the offence, interest of justice will be served by directing the learned trial court to expedite the trial within a stipulated period of time.
The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The learned trial court shall proceed with the hearing on a day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated timeline of one year is strictly adhered to. All witnesses and counsels are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings.
The trial court has also to be conscious of the rights of the accused persons and is under obligation of law to ensure that all expeditious, necessary and coercive measures as per law are adopted to ensure the presence of witnesses. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel.
The learned trial court shall issue summons by regular process as per Section 62 Cr.P.C. and also by registered post as contemplated under Section 69 Cr.P.C. to expedite the trial.
The learned trial court shall promptly take out all strict coercive measures against all the witnesses in accordance with law who fail to appear in the trial proceeding. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel.
The police authorities shall ensure that warrants or any coercive measures as per law taken out by the learned trial court to ensure that the attendance of the witnesses are promptly executed.
The Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh shall file an affidavit before the trial court on the date fixed regarding status of execution of the warrants/service of summons taken out by the learned trial court.
In case there is a failure on part of the police authorities to execute the warrants or other coercive measures, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh shall state the reasons for the same in the said affidavit and also show the steps taken to execute the warrants. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh shall simultaneously inform the Additional Director General of Police (ADG) Agra Zone, about the aforesaid failure of the police authorities in the first instance to execute the warrants and coercive measures issued by the learned trial court. If required, the Additional Director General of Police (ADG) Agra Zone, may issue an appropriate directions to ensure that the warrants issued are promptly executed by the learned trial court.
The delay in execution of warrants and consequent absence of witnesses is one of the principal causes of delays in criminal trials and has to be addressed effectively by all stakeholders.
The trial judge shall submit a fortnightly report on the progress of trial and the steps taken to comply with this order to the learned District Judge.
A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial judge through the learned District Judge, Aligarh by the Registrar (Compliance) by FAX.
Order Date :- 12.7.2023 "
10. At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel has invited the attention of Court to the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by this Court in bail application of co-accused Premveer Singh and on the basis of recital contained in paragraph 2 at page 2 of the said order, he submits that case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of co-acused Kartik, The same recovery of Iron Rod was made form applicant and co-accused Kartik, who has already been enlarged on bail. He therefore submits that, in view of above, case of present applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of two co-accused namely Premveer Singh and Rahul, whose bail applications were rejected by this Court. It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. 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 custody since 01.12.2022. As such, he has undergone more than seven and a half 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 relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalyzed. There does not exist any such circumstance necessitating custodial arrest of applicant during pendency of trial. He therefore contends 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.
11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava as well as Mr. Mohammad Khalid the learned counsel representing first informant have opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since the applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Criminality was committed by the named as well as charge sheeted accused with a common intention. Therefore, same is incapable of being separated or segregated. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.
12. Having heard the learned senior counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava as well as Mohammad Khalid the learned counsel representing first informant, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that case of present applicant is clearly distinguishable from two of the named as well as charge-sheted accused namely Premveer Singh and Rahul, role of present applicant in the crime in question appears to be similar to that co co-accused Kartik, who has already been enlarged on bail, in spite of the fact that he charge-sheet has been submitted, the learned AGA as well as the learned counsel representing first informant could not pointed out any such distinguishing feature to distinguish the case of applicant from co-accused Kartik, submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant as noted herein above could not be dislodged by the learned A.G.A. or by the learned counsel representing first informant with reference to the record at this stage nor could they point out any such circumstance necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during he pendency of trial, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
13. Accordingly, present application for bail is allowed.
14. Let the applicant-Gulveer Chhaunkar involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two 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) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.
(ii) 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) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
15. 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 of applicant and send him to prison Order Date :- 24.7.2023 YK