Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20198 of 2016 Applicant :- Sumit Singh Alias Monu Alias Chavanni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brijesh Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Sumit Singh Alias Monu Alias Chavanni in Case Crime No. 431 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, 379 I.P.C., Police Station- Ubhao, District- Ballia with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the first information report two persons specifically are stated to have fired at both the deceased namely viz. Mr. Parashuram Tiwari and Mr. Vindeshwari Tiwari who succumbed to injuries. The applicant was not named in the first information report. During investigation no evidence worth the name to connect the applicant with the instant crime could be collected. In this behalf it is categorically stated that there is no evidence even of circumstantial nature of last seen or his presence at the time of incident stated by any of the witnesses. However, he was made an accused in the present case on the basis of confession of the co-accused before the police. The said confession is not admissible evidence. However, the applicant has been connected with the present case of double murder on the basis of confession of the co-accused as noted above and the call detail reports of the named accused Dhananjay Singh and the applicant. From the call detail reports, the Investigating Officer reached at a conclusion that the applicant and the main accused Dhananjay Singh were constantly in touch with each other and the location of mobile of Dhananjay and the applicant was found near the place of the incident. It is argued that merely on the basis of the call detail reports that the applicant was in touch with the main accused Dhananjay Singh who is named in the FIR it cannot be inferred that the applicant had participated in the alleged incident. There is no surveillance report of the mobile of the applicant and the co-accused from which the evidence of conspiracy could have been inferred. Lastly, he contended that however, be that as it may the fact remains against the applicant and even if the prosecution evidence is believed to be true the only role of the applicant would that of a conspirator in the alleged crime as the participation is alleged to have been on the basis of use of mobile phone. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the police has named the applicant as he has bad criminal antecedents of about 14 cases. He has further submitted that in the absence of any reliable and cogent evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged incident merely because the applicant has criminal history he may not be detained in jail who is incarcerated since 03.08.2015. Other co-accused Rajesh Singh @ Chintu Singh and Anoop Singh, Sampurna Nand Yadav @ Buwa have already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.02.2015 and 14.12.2015 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 37917 of 2014 & 7424 of 2015, respectively. Nothing incriminating relating to the crime was recovered on the pointing out or at the instance of the applicant. There is no early prospect of conclusion of trial. So, the applicant, deserves to be released on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that the applicant is in fact a sharpshooter and a hired assessee having a known criminal history of 14 cases. Therefore, he should not be enlarged on bail. The learned counsel for the informant has drawn the attention of the court towards the call detail reports and the confession of the co-accused based on which it is stated that prima facie at this stage it is sufficient to refuse grant of bail to the applicant. However, he could not point out any strong circumstance to establish complicity of the applicant in the present crime and further he could not dispute the explanation of criminal history of the applicant furnished from his side.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant- Sumit Singh Alias Monu Alias Chavanni be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the courts below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 24.9.2018 Vikas