Allahabad High Court
Akhand Pratap Singh @ Hoti vs State Of U.P. on 27 July, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:151122 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33032 of 2023 Applicant :- Akhand Pratap Singh @ Hoti Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Narain Singh,M.N. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satendra Tirpathi Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mahesh Narain Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 211 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 336, 307, 302, 506 IPC, Police Station- Jalesar, District- Etah, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
3. FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and eight others and one unknown person and according to the FIR, at the time of demarcation of land in presence of Lekhpals, applicant along with other accused persons arrived at spot and he was having riffle and all other accused persons were having their respective weapons and started making assault.
4. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant caused farsa injury on the head of the Sheelendra, the father of the informant and also opened fire through his riffle and co-accused Monu opened fire from his riffle upon Gavendra and co-accused Lakhveer also caused axe injury to the informant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 336, 308, 506 IPC but after the death of the father of the informant, Sheelendra case was converted under Section 302 IPC.
6. He further submitted that during investigation, two statements of the informant were recorded by the Investigating Officer and in the first statement, he although, repeated the version of the FIR but when his second statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer then he changed his version and stated that applicant caused injury on the head of the deceased through the butt of his riffle and also caused injury through farsa on his head and further stated that co-accused Monu also caused farsa injury on the head of the deceased. He further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of two other eye-witnesses, who also claimed themselves to be injured witnesses i.e. Gavendera and Dharmendra. He further submits, injury sustained to both the eye-witnesses were simple in nature.
7. He further submitted that when the deceased Sheelendra was taken to primary health centre then the doctor noted one lacerated wound and his autopsy report also suggests that he died due to one injury sustained by him on his head and as per the allegation applicant and co-accused Monu caused farsa injury on the head of the deceased.
8. He further submitted that during investigation, when the statement of one of the Lekhpal was recorded then he categorically stated that in his presence no such incident was taken place and this fact completely belies the version of the FIR that in present of the two Lekhpals incident took place.
9. He further submitted that bail application of accused persons Monu @ Keshav, Ashish, Ramu, Ajay and Raju have already been allowed and case of applicant is exactly at par with co-accused Monu in view of the statement of the injured witnesses and second statement of the informant. He placed the bail orders of accused persons, which are taken on record and collectively marked as 'A'.
10. He further submitted that although, applicant is having criminal history of five cases but his criminal history has been explained in detail in paragraph no. 50 of the affidavit. He further submitted that enmity between both the sides is admitted, therefore, it appears that only due to previous enmity, applicant has been roped in the present matter along with other accused persons. He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 01.07.2022 i.e. for more than a year.
11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted it is a case of brutal murder and in the incident, number of persons sustained injuries including informant of the case and specific role of causing injury to the deceased has been assigned to applicant and post-mortem report of the deceased also corroborates the version of the witnesses including injured witnesses but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that as per the FIR and the statements of the witnesses, the alleged incident occurred in presence of two Lekhpals but when the statement of one of the Lekhpals was recorded then he categorically stated that no such incident took place in his presence and the statement of second Lekhpal was not recorded by the Investigating Officer and story narrated by the informant in the FIR has been changed by him in his second statement recorded during investigation and in the second statement, he assigned the role of causing head injury through farsa to the applicant and co-accused Monu @ Keshav and from the autopsy report of the deceased, it appears that deceased sustained one injury on his head and co-accused Monu @ Keshav has been released on bail.
12. Learned counsel for the informant however pointed out that applicant is having criminal history of five cases and he was highly inimical with the deceased and informant, therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should be released on bail.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
14. From the record however, it reflects that it is a case of brutal murder and in broad day light father of the informant was eliminated but in the FIR, there was allegation against the applicant that he caused farsa injury on the head of the deceased and also used riffle however, when the second statement of the informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then he stated that applicant used the butt of his riffle and also caused farsa injury on the head of the deceased and he also assigned the role of causing head injury to the deceased through farsa to co-accused Monu @ Keshav. Further, when the second statements of two injured Dharmendra and Govendra were recorded by Investigating Officer then they also stated that applicant used the butt of rifle but they did not state that applicant also used 'farsa' and they stated that co-accused Monu@ Keshav caused farsa injury on the head of the deceased and applicant also used the butt of his rifle on the head of the deceased. Further, injury sustained to injured persons appears to be simple.
15. Further, it appears that deceased died due to single head injury of his head and role of causing head injury to him assigned to applicant and co-accused Monu@ Keshav and Keshav has already enlarged on bail and case of applicant is at par with him on merit.
16. Further, as per the prosecution, incident took place at the time of demarcation in presence of two Lekhpals but during investigation, when the statement of one of the Lekhpals was recorded by the Investigating Officer then he stated that no such incident was taken place in his presence and statement of the second Lekhpal was not recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation.
17. Further, bitter animosity between both the sides is admitted and although, applicant is having criminal history of five cases but in paragraph no. 50 of the affidavit his criminal history has been explained and he is in jail since July, 2022 i.e. for more than a year.
18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
20. Let the applicant- Akhand Pratap Singh @ Hoti 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
Order Date :- 27.7.2023 KK Patel