Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Firoz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the informant/ complainant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Yogendra Pratap Singh @ Shalu for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 244 of 2019, under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 IPC, relating to Police Station Maharajganj, District Faizabad, during trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing this bail application submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of political enmity and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.
It is further submitted that the applicant was not named either in the FIR or in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and complicity of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused persons, namely, Aditya Singh and Abhishek Singh and the same could not be used against the applicant being recorded in the police custody.
It is further submitted that conjoint reading of the statements of eye witnesses, namely, Ram Sagar Yadav and Sandeep Singh would reveal that the role of firing has been assigned to co-accused persons Aditya Singh, Abhishek Singh and Bheem Singh while the role of only exhortation has been assigned to the applicant. In the First Information Report and in the statement of the informant, namely, Ram Sagar Yadav, who is also an eye witness no role of any kind has been assigned to the instant applicant and therefore the statement of Sandeep Singh which has been recorded with considerable delay, could not be believed.
It is also stated that even if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face value the motive of the crime was available to only co-accused persons, Aditya Singh and Abhishek Singh and the role of firing has also been assigned to Aditya Singh, Abhishek Singh and Bheem Singh and there was no occasion for the applicant to be present at the scene of the crime. No recovery of any kind has been made either from the applicant or on his pointing out.
It is also submitted that the applicant is not having any previous criminal history and is detained in prison since 11.8.2019. Charge sheet in the matter has already been filed and the evidence which has been collected by the Investigating Officer against the applicant is so weak that there are remote chances of conviction of the applicant.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant on the ground that in the statement of one of the eye witness, namely, Sandeep Singh the role of exhortation has been assigned to the instant applicant and therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
Shri Firoz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the informant/ complainant submits that the complicity of the applicant in the crime has been surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused persons as well as in the statement of one of the eye witnesses, namely, Sandeep Singh and therefore having regard to the role of the applicant played in the crime, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record including case diary, it is evident that the informant, namely, Ram Sagar Yadav, who had lodged the First Information Report has claimed himself to be the eye witness and has stated in the FIR as well as in his statement that Aditya Singh and Abhishek Singh and other co-accused persons had dragged the deceased towards the Chitra Bisawan Road and co-accused Aditya Singh and Abhishek Singh had fired towards the deceased. On 18.7.2019 co-accused persons Aditya Singh and Abhishek Singh were arrested and stated to have confessed their guilt to the tune that they deputed co-accused Karan @ Digvijay Singh to inform them about the departure of the deceased and Karan telephonically informed them while co-accused Yogendra Pratap and Pulkit had intercepted his motorcycle and thereafter Aditya Singh, Abhishek Singh and Bheem Singh fired at the deceased and killed him. On the pointing of Aditya Singh and Abhishek Singh 3 empty cartridges were also recovered. It is also a case of the prosecution that on 21.7.2019 Karan @ Digvijay Singh was arrested and confessed that he signalled the departure of the deceased from the Jim by a torch. The Investigating Officer has also collected whatsApp chat of the mobile phone of Karan which only shows that he has witnessed the murder. On 24.7.2019, statement of Jim owner, Sandeep Singh was recorded, wherein he specifically assigned the role of firing to accused persons Abhishek Singh, Aditya Singh and Bheem Singh and the role of exhortation has only been assigned to Pulkit and instant applicant-Shalu. On the pointing of Bheem Singh a country made pistol and motorcycle Platina was also recovered in front of independent witness. Eye witness- Sandeep Singh has also identified Bheem Singh as one of the assailants while he was being taken in police custody remand. There are many independent witnesses who have seen Aditya Singh, Abhishek Singh and Bheem Singh going on their motorcycle waving country made pistols, after the commission of the alleged crime. The role of applicant is distinguishable from the role of Bheem Singh, Aditya and Abhishek, to whom role of firing has been assigned.
It has been overwhelmingly submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there are only two eye witnesses of the crime, namely, Ram Sagar Yadav and Sandeep Singh. Eye witness Ram Sagar Yadav has assigned the role of firing to Aditya Singh and Abhishek Singh while Sandeep Singh has assigned the role of firing to three persons Aditya Singh and Abhishek Singh and one unknown person and later on identified Bheem Singh as the third person, who was firing at the deceased along with Abhishek and Aditya Singh.
It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the role of only providing information of the departure of the deceased from the Jim has been assigned to co-accused Karan and role of only exhortation has been assigned to Pulkit and instant applicant-Shalu which could not be believed in the back ground of the fact that in the statement of Ram Sagar Yadav no role of any kind has been assigned to either Karan, Pulkit or applicant- Shalu.
Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, I find force in the submissions of learned counsel for applicant only for the purpose of releasing the applicant on bail. The bail application is, thus, allowed.
Let the applicant - Yogendra Pratap Singh @ Shalu involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Observations made herein above are only for the purpose of this bail and would have no effect on the fate of trial.
Order Date :- 22.2.2021 Muk