Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28084 of 2017 Applicant :- Sujeet Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Mohan Singh,Raj Kishor Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brajesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Sujeet Singh in connection with Case Crime No.1516 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 304, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C, P.S.
Mohammdabad Gohana, District Mau.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Brajesh Kumar Singh and Sri S.A.S. Abidi, learned AGA on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the deceased Chandan and the injured Sandhya wife of Chandan and Paras Nath, who is the father of Chandan are all co-sharers in property being related by blood to the assailants numbering six; that it is submitted that initially an NCR was registered at the instance of the first informant Paras Nath Singh by the police being NCR No.411 of 2015 with the allegation that on 6.12.2015 at 02:00 p.m., four assailants, that is to say, Jay Shankar Singh, Vijay Bahadur Singh, both sons of Paras Nath Singh, Rahul son of Daya Shankar Singh and Sujit son of Vijay Bahadur Singh assaulted the daughter-in-law of first informant Sandhya and other family members with sticks (lathi, danda) abusing them during the assault and while leaving threatened them with death; that it is further set out in the NCR that the injured Chandan, one of the sons of the informant Paras Nath Singh was critical and has been sent off for treatment to Azamgarh; that lateron on 7.12.2015, on a written application given by Sandhya, the NCR was converted to a regular Case being Case Crime No.1516 of 2016 vide G.D. Entry No.9 dated 7.1.2015 recorded at 07:30 AM; that it is submitted that in the information now given and recorded as a FIR through GD entry under reference the number of assailants was increased from 4 to 6 whereas a general role of assault was assigned to the originally nominated four accused and a specific role of assaulting the deceased to his head with a brick was now assigned to Usha Singh wife of Jay Shanker Singh and Sheela Singh wife of Vijay Bahadur Singh; that in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, it is in fact a case of sudden quarrel between the members of the family, who had sat down to discuss issues of their respective shares in the property; that there was no premeditation involved and it was a sudden quarrel; that so far as the applicant is concerned, he has been assigned a general role of assault with a stick along with others whereas the main role has been assigned to two women squarely nominated in the FIR, that is to say, Sheela Singh and Usha Singh, who are said to have assaulted the deceased with a brick; that a perusal of the post-mortem report also shows that there is deep injury to the skull and cause of death is shown as ante-mortem head injury which is most likely to have resulted from one of the bricks assigned to Sheela Singh and Usha Singh; that in no way the fatal injury can be assigned to the applicant; that there is a general allegation of assault with sticks relating to which there are no corresponding grievous fatal injury discernible in the PMR.
Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail vehemently with the submission that each of the named assailants have acted with a common intention and have assaulted the deceased and injured others with different weapons causing in the process fatal injuries to one of the victims Chandan. As such, it cannot be said that the applicant even though not responsible for causing the head injury does not bear vicarious liability in the assault.
Learned AGA has adopted the submission of learned counsel for the complainant and has also opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, the fact that it appears to be a sudden quarrel between the family members over sharing of family property all of whom are co sharers, in fact, father, son and brothers, there being fatal injuries specified to co-accused Sheela Singh and Usha Singh whereas the applicant being assigned a general role in the assault to the injured with a stick (lathi, danda) but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Sujeet Singh involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 Shahroz