Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Mr. Hari Om Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, and perused the record.
The present second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.321 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 34, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Dhammaur, District Sultanpur, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case only with the annoyance that he & his family were not supporting the wife of the deceased who was contesting the election for the post of Village Pradhaan. He also submitted that prior to lodging of the present case, neither any complaint was ever made against the applicant or his family members. He also submitted that the F.I.R. in question was lodged by Manoj Kumar Singh claiming himself as eye witness with the allegation that on the date of incident, he along with his brother namely Vijay Kumar Singh @ Raja Babu was going with the motorcycle bearing registration No. UP 44 AD 9196 to take Nomination Form for the post of Village Pradhan and he was also accompanied by Jagdish Kashyap and Sudhansu Singh on another motorcycle. At about 02:30 p.m., when they reached near the Star Brick Kiln Hariharpur, then accused persons namely Anurag Singh @ Annu, Karamveer @ Vicky (applicant), Tirath Raj Singh & one unknown were coming from the opposite side on two motorcycles and they started firing on them, but no one received injury, the informant and other persons left their motorcycle and ran away, in the meantime, his brother Vijay Kumar Singh was chased and shot by the accused persons, and his brother fell down, then all the accused persons went away by saying that the work is done.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that on the place of incident, no any motorcycle was found by the Investigating Officer. He also submitted that as per the prosecution case, after the said incident, the injured was brought to the District Hospital, Sultanpur in the dead condition and the inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted in presence of the informant on the same day at 17:30 hours and the postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted at 7:00-8:00 p.m. and seven ante mortem injuries are found on the body out of which injury Nos.4 & 7 are the fire arm injuries, injury No.5 is corresponding to the injury No.4 and injury Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 6 are the lacerated wound and the cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem fire arm injury.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the statements of alleged eye witnesses namely Manoj Kumar Singh (informant/brother of the deceased), Jagdish Kashyap and Sudhanshu Singh were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. along with the statement of other persons, and charge sheet was filed against five persons namely Anurag Singh, Karamveer Singh (applicant), Tirath Raj Singh, Nirbhay Singh and Shivam Singh. He also submitted that F.I.R. bearing No.171 of 2017, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Dhammaur, District Sultanpur was lodged by Manoj Kumar Singh (informant) on 31.10.2017 with the allegation that on 27.10.2017 date was fixed in the present case for evidence before the trial court and he went to the court for evidence, and after giving evidence he was coming outside from the court, then he was called by the applicant and other accused persons and thereafter, he was abused and life threat was given with the warning not to give the evidence against them.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the alleged eye witnesses related to the facts namely Jagdish Prasad Kashyap-P.W.1 (associate of the informant & the deceased), Manoj Kumar Singh-P.W.2 (informant/brother of the deceased) and Sudhanshu Singh-P.W.3 (son of the deceased) are examined before the trial court. He also submitted that Dr. Ram Dhirendra, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased, is also examined before the trial court as P.W.4 . He also submitted that it is admitted by informant (P.W.2) that the F.I.R. in question was lodged by him with the averments that four assailants were coming from the opposite side and they started firing on him and others, and before the trial court,he deposed that five assailants overtook their vehicles, obstructed their way and opened firing on them. In his statement, he also admitted that the deceased was driving motorcycle and the informant was the pillion rider and similarly Jadgish Kashyap was driving the second motorcycle and Sudhanshu Singh was the pillion rider. He also submitted that the aforesaid eye witnesses also admitted before the trial court that their statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and in their statement, they assigned the role of firing to all the accused persons, but before the trial court they tried to develop a case that the accused persons also assaulted the brother of the informant with kicks and punches and butt of the pistol and thereafter, shot him dead.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that as per the deposition of the eye witnesses, all the witnesses ran away to save their life, then it is highly improbable to see the whole incident and narrate the manner of assault before the trial court and general allegation have been levelled against all the accused persons for causing fire arm injury to the deceased. He also submitted that the alleged eye witnesses also deposed before the trial court that the applicant was driving the motorcycle, but the fact that who caused the said injury to the deceased was not stated by any of the eye witnesses. He also submitted that in the statement of the aforesaid eye witnesses, they also admitted that they left their motorcycle at the place of incident and on one went there to collect the motorcycle, but later on they found their motorcycles standing at their house.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the prosecution story is contradictory, as in the F.I.R., it was stated that the assailants were coming from the opposite side, but in the statement deposed before the trial court they stated that the assailants overtook them and he also relied on the deposition of Dr. Ram Dhirendra (P.W.4) that injury Nos.1,2,3 & 6 are possible with lathi danda and iron rod and also admitted that injury Nos.4 & 7 are caused with the fire arm and the injury No.5 is corresponding to injury No.4, but as per the prosecution case, all five persons opened fire, therefore, this story is also not corroborating with the F.I.R. as well as the Postmortem report.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant was arrested on the next day from the date of incident and he is in jail since 17.11.2015 and the trial is not concluded till today. He also submitted that only formal witnesses are to be examined, therefore, there is no possibility for tampering of any evidence. He also submitted that the applicant was also victimized by the jail authorities on the behest of the informant's side. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2018 12 SCC 505 and in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 on 27.07.2021, and submitted that since all the material evidences have been examined and cross-examined, therefore, release of the applicant will not affect the trial when the formal witnesses are to be examined from the side of the prosecution. In such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that after investigation, the involvement of the applicant was found and they also submitted that F.I.R. was lodged for giving threat to the witnesses by the accused persons. They also do not dispute this fact that this incident was not reported to the trial court, as the allegedly said incident was taken place in court premises.
Learned counsel for the complainant also does not dispute the fact all the witnesses of fact have been examined before the trial court.
Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the bail application, F.I.R. of the present case, inquest report & postmortem report of the deceased, statement of the alleged eye witnesses namely Jagdish Prasad Kashyap-P.W.1, Manoj Kumar Singh-P.W.2 & Sudhanshu Singh-P.W.3 and the statement of doctor who conducted the postmortem of the body of the deceased as P.W.4 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied by learned counsel for the applicant in the cases of Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba vs. State of Maharastra (supra) & Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (supra), as the applicant is in jail since 17.11.2015 and all the witnesses of fact have been examined, therefore, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant - Karamveer Singh @ Vicky - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 2 Lakhs and two reliable sureties each of the said amount to the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(1) Applicant will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.
(2) Applicant will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.
(3) Applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.
Trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad and the computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 S. Shivhare