Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7537 of 2021 Applicant :- Vijay Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Dhar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Swetashwa Agarwal
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no eye-witness of alleged incident and that neither the first informant nor any other witness has witnessed the incident. From post-mortem report of deceased, it appears that deceased has sustained only one fire-arm injury. Learned counsel has referred the statement of co-accused persons, namely, Jagat Raj Pal, Pramod, Naveen and Anwar @ Barood and they all have stated that on the exhortation of applicant, co- accused Gauri @ Jagat Yadav has caught the deceased and co- accused Pradeep @ Lala has fired a bullet at deceased. It has been further submitted that similarly placed co-accused persons namely, Arvind Bhati and Jagat Singh @ Gauri have already been enlarged on bail by different Benches of this Court, vide orders dated 20.10.2020 and 12.01.2021, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.-27634 of 2020 and 1936 of 2021 respectively. It has been further submitted that though, the criminal history of 17 cases was shown against applicant but except the case of Gangster Act, most of the other cases pertain to minor offences like that of Excise Act and Arms Act and that no heinous offence was shown in criminal history of applicant and he has already been acquitted in one case and that applicant is on bail in other cases. Referring to the cases of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2012 (1) Supreme 339 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28420 of 2009 "Rama Kant Yadav vs. The State of U.P.", it was submitted that in view of nature of evidence and the fact that similarly placed co-accused persons have already been granted bail, bail of applicant must not be rejected merely on the basis of alleged criminal history. It has been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.07.2020 and that in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is named in the FIR and it was stated in the FIR that applicant has fired bullet at deceased, however, it could not be disputed that there is no eye-witness of alleged incident and as per disclosure statements of co-accused persons, the role of firing at deceased has been attributed to co-accused Pradeep @ Lala. Learned counsel for the first informant has submitted that there are serious allegations against applicant and that in view of long criminal history of 17 cases against applicant, he cannot be granted bail on the basis of parity of co-accused persons, who have earlier been granted bail. Regarding relevancy of criminal history, learned counsel for the first informant has placed reliance upon the cases of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2014) 16 Supreme Court Cases 508 and Rishipal @ Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. Amardeep and others decided on 5 March, 2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2021, arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 391 of 2021.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record and the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the parties.
It is apparent from the record that there is no eye-witness of alleged incident and as per prosecution version, only one bullet has been fired at deceased and that as per disclosure statements of co-accused persons, role of firing has been attributed to co- accused Pradeep @ Lala and that similarly placed co-accused persons namely, Arvind Bhati and Jagat Singh @ Gauri have already been granted bail by this Court.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Vijay Singh involved in Case Crime No.428 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC, P.S.Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar, be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 23.9.2021 Neeraj