Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34103 of 2021 Applicant :- Shishupal Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ishwar Chandra Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Satish Kumar Singh, learned brief holder for the State and perused the record.
Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant states that he has filed Vakalatnama in the office on 26.10.2021 but the same is not on record.
Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Shishupal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 142 of 2021, under Sections 307 and 302 IPC registered at P.S. Surajpur, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.
The prosecution case as per the first information report lodged on 1.3.2021 by Subhash Chandra under Section 307 IPC naming the applicant and one unknown person is that they are involved in the business of providing equipments to news channels for live telecast in which he, Hemant Kumar (the injured) and Ram Narayan Singh are the Directors. On 28.2.2021 at about 3:30 a.m., Hemant Kumar came to the office along with his friend Shishupal who is the applicant and they remained there throughout the day. Other than them, the guard of the company namely Sahdev was also present there. At about 7:30 p.m., a guard of the second shift namely Pravesh Kumar called from his mobile to the mobile of the first informant and told him that both the persons are lying in an injured condition and blood is oozing out and they are in a state of unconsciousness. Shishupal had taken Rs. 7.5 lacs from Hemant Kumar who is the Director of the Company and had returned Rs. 1 lac only. A dispute was going on since last six months. Shishupal along with his associate assaulted Hemant Kumar and Sahdev, the guard of the company with stones, bricks, battery and heavy object. Both the injured have been admitted in Kailash Hospital, Greater Noida who are in ICU.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is named in the first information report but he he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that later on Sahdev died and then Section 302 IPC was added in the present case. It is further argued that the prosecution story is totally false and concocted inasmuch as Omhari, the brother of the injured, Hemant Kumar was present there but still the first information report was not lodged immediately by Omhari, the brother of the Hemant Kumar. It is also argued that the lodging of the first information report by a different person when Omhari, the brother of Hemant Kumar was present which would show that the same is with an intention to falsely implicate the applicant in the present case. It is further argued that even though the evidence that the applicant was coming out of the company by scaling the gate is also false and with an intention to implicate the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was the easy prey as there was some dispute with regard to money between Hemant Kumar and the applicant and just to create pressure and get the liability settled, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the statement of Hemant Kumar was recorded after 40 days of the incident which also goes to show that the version is not trustworthy. It is argued that charge sheet has been submitted in the matter and as such there is no chances of the applicant tampering with the evidence. The applicant having no criminal history as stated in paragraph 17 and is in jail since 3.3.2021.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the first information report and he was seen running away from the company by scaling the gate after committing the incident. Hemant Kumar is an injured witness who has stated about the applicant assaulting him and even the fact that he has assaulted Sahdev. The presence of Hemant Kumar at the place of occurrence is not beyond any doubt and is natural. The postmortem report of the deceased corroborates with the prosecution story and even the injury report of Hemant Kumar corroborates with it. The prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, It is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report. Hemant Kumar is an injured witness whose presence cannot be doubted. The identity of the applicant also cannot be doubted.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
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 :- 26.10.2021 SA (Samit Gopal,J.)