[ad_1]
Allahabad High Court
Hemant Singh vs State Of U.P. on 22 July, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119510 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18092 of 2025 Applicant :- Hemant Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Vijay Laxmi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. D.K. Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 27.5.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2023 (Hemant Singh Vs. State oif U.P.). Thereafter applicant filed his repeat application for bail, which was registered as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32843 of 2023 (Hemant Singh Vs. State of U.P.). Same was also rejected by this Court, vide order dated 24.8.2023. For ready refefence, the order dated 24.8.2023 is reproduced herein under:-
“1. Heard Mr. Manish Tewary, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned Senior Counsel for applicant in court today is taken on record.
3. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant- Hemant Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 145 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B, 216A, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station-Jaitpura, District-Varanasi, during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 450 of 2021 (State Vs. Prabhakar Upadhyay and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B, 216A, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station-Jaitpura, District-Varanasi
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 28.08.2020, a prompt F.I.R. dated 28.08.2020 was lodged by first informant Kailash Singh and was registered as Case Crime No. 0145 of 2020 under Sections 302, 307, 120B I.P.C. Police Station-Jaitpura, District-Varanasi. In the aforesaid F.I.R. two persons namely Smt. Shardul Singh and Shiweshwar Singh have been nominated as named accused.
5. First bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a very detailed order dated 27.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 51806 of 2021 (Ravi Pratap Singh @ Sammi Vs. State of U.P.) alongwith connected matters. For ready reference, order dated 27.05.2022 is reproduced herein under:
“1. Heard Mr. V. P. Srivastava, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant-Vijendra Singh, Mr. Manish Tiwary, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Syed Imran Ibrahim and Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh the learned Counsel for applicants- Prabhakar Upadhyay and Vishal Singh, Mr. Dharmendra Dubey, the learned counsel for applicant- Hemant Singh, Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant Ravi Pratap @ Sammi, Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant Naveen @ Ayush, Mr. Kumar Ashutosh, the learned counsel for applicant Shashwat Singh, Mr. Prashant Kumar, the learned A.G.A. along with Mr. P.K. Sahi, the brief holder representing State and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for first informant.
2. Perused the record.
3. These applications for bail have been filed by applicants Ravi Pratap Singh @ Sammi, Shashwat Singh, Prabhakar Upadhyay, Vishal Singh, Navin @ Ayush, Hemant Singh and Vijendra Singh seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.145 of 2020, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 302, 307,120B, 216A and 34 I.P.C. and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Jaitpura, District- Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.
4. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 51806 of 2021 (Ravi Pratap Singh @ Sammi Vs. State of U.P.) came up for orders on 21.01.2022 and this Court passed the following order:-
“Case called out in revise list.
Leaned counsel for applicant is not connected virtually. Learned A.G.A. is connected virtually.
Learned A.G.A. points out that following bail applications filed by co-accused are also pending before this Court:
(i) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13129 of 2021 (Shashwat Singh Vs. State of U.P.)
(ii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15734 of 2021 (Prabhakar Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P.)
(iii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16012 of 2021 (Vishal Singh Vs. State of U.P.)
(iv) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27264 of 2021 (Navin @ Ayush Vs. State of U.P.)
(v) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31965 of 2021 (Hemant Singh Vs. State of U.P.)
(vi) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34495 of 2021 (Vijendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.)
In view of above connect above mentioned applications along with this application for bail.
Matter shall reappear as fresh on 7.2.2022 along with connected matters.
Order Date :- 21.1.2022″
5. Pursuant to above order dated 21.1.2022, aforementioned bail applications stood connected and have now being listed together. Since all the bail applications arise out of the same case crime number, therefore, they have been heard together and are now being disposed of finally by a common order. After the orders were reserved in the present bail applications, learned counsel for applicants and the learned counsel for first informant have filed their respective written arguments which are placed on record.
6. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 28.08.2020, a prompt F.I.R. dated 28.08.2020 was lodged by first informant- Kailash Singh (uncle of one of the deceased Abhishek Singh @ Prince) and was registered as Case Crime No.145 of 2020, under Sections- 302, 307, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Jaitpura, District- Varanasi. In the aforesaid F.I.R., two persons, namely Shardul Singh, and Shiveshwar Rai have been nominated as named accused, whereas an unknown person has also been arraigned as an accused.
7. The gravamen of the allegations made in the said F.I.R. is that Abhishek Singh @ Prince (nephew of first informant), is an Advocate by profession. On 28.02.2020 at about 10.00 a.m., nephew of first informant left for Chandauli Civil Court on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. U.P. 65 AC 1701 in the company of his friend Deepak Gaur. As they reached Chauka Ghat Kali Temple, accused persons, who were already following the nephew of first informant, fired 4 to 5 gun-shots on account of which Abhishek Singh, Deepak Gaur and one passer by sustained fire arm injuries. Subsequently, the first informant came to learn that Abhishek Singh and the passer by Balmiki Gaur have succumbed to the gun shot injuries sustained by them, whereas Deepak Gaur the pillion passenger of the motorcycle driven by Abhishek Singh @ Prince was seriously injured. Previous enmity was also alleged in the F.I.R, against Shardul Singh and Shiveswar Rai. Aforesaid persons are alleged to have made complaint against Abhishek Singh @ Prince, previously also which complaint is being investigated by the Police of Police Station Pandeypur, Lalpur, District- Varanasi. On account of certain land dispute frequently exhortation was extended by aforesaid accused to Abhishek @ Prince.
8. After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C.
9 The inquest (panchayatnama) of the bodies of deceased Abhishek Singh @ Prince and Balmiki Gaur were conducted on the same day i.e. 28.08.2020. In the opinion of witnesses of inquest (panch witnesses), the nature of death of deceased were characterized as homicidal.
10 Thereafter, the post-mortem of the bodies of the deceased were also conducted on 28.08.2020. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of deceased Abhishek Singh @ Prince was coma and haemorrhagic shock due to ante-mortem fire arm injuries. The Autopsy Surgeon found following ante-mortem fire arm injuries on the body of deceased Abhishek Singh @ Prince:
“i. Fire-arm wound 0.5 cm in diameter into brain deep on right side of parietal bone, 0.6 cm back from right ear, 11 cm outer to middle.
ii. Fire-arm exit wound 1 cm in diameter on left side of parietal bone, 5 cm above from left ear, 08 cm. outer to middle.
Note-Injury no.1 and 2 coincide each other direction right to left slightly up, straight.
iii. Fire-arm wound 0.5 cm in diameter into cavity in right side of face, 02cm below from right ear lobule with collar abraded.
iv. Fire-arm exit would 2 x 1 cm on left eyeball.
Note-Injury no. 3 and 4 concide each other, direction down to up-right to left.
v. Fire-arm entry wound with 0.5 cm in diameter into cavity deep on left side of forehead, 0.6 cm from tragus of left ear and collar abraded.
vi. Fire-arm exit wound 01 cm in diameter, midline back of occipital area of scull, 12 cm from left ear.
Note- Injury no. v and vi concide each other. direction front to back.
vii. Fire-arm entry wound 0.5 cm in diameter into chest cavity deep on right side of chest, 13 cm below from midclavicle, 10cm outer to midline with collar .
viii. Fire-arm exit wound 01 cm in diameter on right side of back of trunk, 8cm from midline, 10 cm below from interior angle of scapula.
Note-Injury no. vii and viii concide each other. directions front to back slightly oblique.
ix. Fire-arm entry wound 0.5 cm in diameter on right side of back of front, 16 cm from midline, 11cm. above from right iliac crest with collar abraded .
x. Fire-arm exit wound 2 x1 cm in diameter on left side of scrotum
Note- Injury no. ix and x concide each other, directions from up to down
xi. Fire-arm entry wound 0.5 cm in diameter on right of trunk, 0.3 cm outer to midline, 4 cm above from right iliac crest with collar abraded.
xii. Fire-arm exit wound 2.5 x 1.5 cm on inner aspect of left thigh, 4.8 cm above from patella.
Note- Injury no. xi and xii concide each other, direction up to down, oblique.
xiii. Fire-arm entry wound 0.5 cm in diameter into muscle deep on inner right thigh, 12cm above from knee joint, on dissection bullet (one) recovered from thigh. Bullet sealed and sent to SSP, VHS to concerned constable alongwith sealed sample.”
11. Similarly in respect of deceased Balmiki Gaur, the Autopsy Surgeon opined that cause of death of deceased was haemorrhagic shock due to ante-mortem fire arm injuries, with affect of both lungs ruptured. The Autopsy Surgeon found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased Balmiki Gaur:-
“i. Fire arm entry wound 2 cm in dismeter with cavity deep on right side chest, 05 cm outer to midline, 133 cm from right hill, 02 cm below from right sternoclavicular joint greese collar found.
ii. On opening chest bullet pierce through 2nd to 3 rd ribs, travelles from upword to downward pierce and rupture right lung and also pierce and rupture left lung. After piercing left lung bullet travelled to 6th to 7th rib (found in between 6th to 7 th rib on back side of chest left side). 02 litre blood present in chest cavity.”
12. Injured Deepak Gaur was hopitalized on 28.8.2020 i.e. the date of occurrence. He remained under hospitalization up to 5.9.2020. Ultimately, he was discharged on 6.9.2020 As per the discharge memo of aforesaid injured, which is also part of the Case Diary, the Doctor concluded as follows regarding the injuries sustained by him:
“Gunshot liver injury (segment IV A) with undisplaced fracture of Ist lumbar vertebrae with bilateral paraplegia”
13. At the very initial stage of investigation, Investigating Officer examined a Police informer on 28.8.2020 itself. Same is evident from C.D. Parcha No. 1. Copy of same is also on record as Annexure-11 (page 96) of the bail application of applicant Vijendra Singh. As per the statement of the said Police informer, complicity of Prabhakar, Shashwat, Naveen, Roshan Gupta and various other persons not named in the F.I.R., was alleged in the crime in question.
14. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined the place of occurrence on the pointing of first informant, and prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence. Investigating Officer also recovered empties from the place of occurrence.
15. On the basis of statement of police informer as noted above, Investigating Officer appears to have abandoned the investigation regarding the complicity of named and unknown accused mentioned in the F.I.R. He now proceeded to examine the complicity of persons mentioned in the Statement of Police informer, in the crime in question.
16. Investigating Officer, thereafter, in order to unearth the truth, examined the following witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Surya Dubey (Sales Head), vide C.D. Parch No. 3 dated 01.09.2020. Reeta Gaur (eye witness), vide C.D. Parcha no. 4 dated 02.09.2020, Kailash Singh (first informant), vide C.D. Parcha No.4 dated 02.09.2020, Rajesh Singh (eye-witness), vide C.D. Parcha No. 12 dated 19.09.2020, Arvind Singh (eye witness), vide C.D. Parcha No. 22 dated 05.10.2020, Deepak Gaur (injured witness), vide C.D. Parcha No. 39 dated 06.11.2020, Smt. Soni Gupta (formal witness), vide C.D. Parcha No. 50 dated 09.12.2020, Ansuman Singh and Suresh Kumar Bharti (formal witnesses of assembly of some of the accused, where conspiracy to commit the crime in question is alleged to have been hatched), vide C.D. Parcha No. 58 dated 15.02.2021, Rajeev Ratan Sharma (previous owner of Apache Motorcycle that was used in the commission of crime), vide C.D. Parcha No. 59 dated 17.02.2021. Rajesh Rai (witness of conspiracy) vide C.D. Parcha No. 58 dated 15.02.2021.
17. As per the statement of Kailash Singh (first informant), he is not an eye-witness of the occurrence. He has, however, reiterated the contents of the F.I.R. in respect of the facts preceding the occurrence and the effect of the assault committed by the accused. This witness has, however, denied the complicity of named accused as well as unknown accused mentioned in the F.I.R. regarding the crime in question. He has then detailed about the occurrence, which occurred in 2017 when an attempt was made on the life of nephew of first informant namely Abhishek Singh @ Prince by Vivek Singh Katta. However, in the aforesaid incident one Arif Ansari sustained gun shot injury. Ultimately, this witness has expressed his suspicion against Vivek Singh Katta and Ravi Pratap Singh for committing the crime in question. The four wheeler car (Swift Car) used in the crime was said to be belonging to Ravi Pratap Singh. Vijendra Singh @ Babbu was said to be driving the Hero-Honda Splendar Motorcycle. The Apache Motorcycle was said to be driven by Ravi Pratap Singh. He has further stated that Vivek Singh Katta, Ravi Pratap Singh and Hemant Singh were sitting in the Swift Car. He identified the above on the basis of CCTV footage. He has further stated that Deepak Gaur, friend of the nephew of first informant as well as Balmiki Gaur sustained fire-arm injuries.
18. Rita Gaur (wife of deceased Balmiki Gaur), is an eye-witness of the occurrence. She has stated that she witnessed the occurrence only after hearing the sounds of gun-shots and the shouts of the public present at the scene of occurrence. She saw that her husband was lying on the ground, whereas another person was lying near Kali Temple. She then states that the persons sitting on the motorcycle shot her husband. The CCTV footage was played before her and she identified the assailants and the person wearing the blue shirt was said to be driving the motorcycle.
19. Rajesh Singh, is also an eye-witness of the occurrence. He has first narrated as to how the occurrence occurred and the effect of the same. He has then identified Vivek Singh Katta, who was sitting on the front seat of Swift Car and fired a shot. The driver of the four wheeler was identified as Ravi Pratap Singh. In the aforesaid car, Hemant Singh was sitting in the rear seat. He further identified Atul Vishwakarma. According to this witnesses, the Splendar motorcycle was being driven by Vijendra Singh. He, however, could not specify the shooter sitting on the aforesaid motorcycle as pillion passenger. He then states that he can identify the shooter after seeing him. Previous enmity in between the deceased Abhishek Singh @ Prince and the assailants as well as the factum of previous occurrence were also detailed.
20. Arvind Singh is also an eyewitness of the occurrence. This witness has stated that the occurrence was witnessed by him. On one Splendar motorcycle, Manish Singh alias Sonu and Vijendra Singh @ Babboo were riding. The shot was fired by Manish Singh @ Sonu and the motorcycle was being driven by Vijendra Singh @ Babboo. Adjacent to the said motorcycle there was a Swift Car in which Manish Singh Katta, Vivek Singh Katta, Ravi Pratap Singh and Hemant Singh were sitting. Shot was also fired by Vivek Singh Katta. Ultimately, the assailants fled away. He has then stated about the previous enmity of deceased Abhishek Singh @ Prince and the assailants as well as the previous occurrence.
21. Deepak Gaur is an injured witness. This witness sustained firearm injuries in the occurrence in question. He has first stated how the deceased proceeded from his home and then he was shot near Kali temple. He, however, could not see the assailants. He has then stated about the disclosure alleged to have been made to him by the deceased.
22. Surya Dubey is the Sales Head of Vinayakam Shivam Apartments. According to this witness, one flat on the sixth floor of aforesaid apartments was taken by Smt. Soni Gupta, wife of Vidya Sagar Gupta. Aforesaid flat was given on rent by Smt. Soni Gupta to Ravi Pratap Singh, whose name plate is placed outside the said flat. The rate of rent was Rs. 11,000/- per month. The activities of the tenant and his associates were suspicious. He also produced the deed of rent executed on Stamp Paper. On the photograph being placed before him, he identified the same as that of Ravi Pratap Singh. When the CCTV footage of aforesaid apartment was seen, then Vivek Singh Katta, Ravi Pratap Singh, Atul Vishwakarma, Vijendra Singh alias Babboo (Kakku) and shooters were seen coming out together in the morning of 28.8.2020. Thereafter, the movement of aforesaid persons was also seen, which stood recorded in the CCTV footage.
23. Smt. Soni Gupta is the owner of flat which was given on rent to Ravi Pratap Singh. Except for the aforesaid fact and the the rate of rent of tenanted premise, she has not stated any thing about conspiracy. She only states that the activities of the tenant and his associates were suspicious.
24. As per the statements of Aishwarya Singh and Suresh Kumar Bharti, applicants Shaswat Singh, Prabhakar Upadhyay, Vishal Singh, Navin alias Ayush and others i.e. Manish Singh @ Sonu (role of shooting), Vivek Singh Katta (role of shooting), Ravi Pratap (Driver of Swift Car), Hemant Singh (co-passenger in Swift Car), Vijendra Singh @ Babbu (Driver of Splendar motorcycle) and Atul Vishwarkarma (Driver of Apache Motorcycle) as well as Vishal Vishwakarma alias Raja Babu, Roshan Gupta @ Kittu were seen at the tube well of Prabhakar Upadhyay. These witnesses are alleged to have overheard the talks going on in between them. It is on the basis of aforesaid, they have stated that conspiracy was being hatched to commit the crime in question.
25. Rajeev Ratan Sharma is the previous registered owner of Apache motorcycle bearing registration No. UP 65 DP 8218 having engine no. CE 4FK250898. Aforesaid motorcycle was sold by him to Vivek Singh Katta on 7.8.2020 for a sale consideration of Rs.75,000/- The copy of the sale letter was produced by him before the Investigating Officer.
26. Subsequently, Investigating Officer examined Rajesh Rai @ Jhunna. This witness in his statement has disclosed that he had prior knowledge to the incident that Abhinav Singh was acting as an informer. He used to give information to Vivek Singh Katta. He has further stated that Abhinav Singh used to visit Abhishek Singh regularly and shared tea with him in the morning. According to this witness, it is this informer who had informed Vivek Singh Katta about the movement of Abhishek Singh @ Prince on telephone. It is on the information disclosed by Abhinav Singh that occurrence in question occurred. Previously also Abhinav Singh had disclosed about the conversation that had taken place in between himself and Vivek Singh Katta but out of sheer fear , he did not disclose the same to any one.
27. On the basis of above, Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that complicity of various other persons including those mentioned in the statement of Police informer recorded on 28.8.2020 are apparent in the commission of the crime in question. During course of investigation, some of the accused persons surrendered before Court below whereas some were arrested. The details of same are as under:
14.9.2020, Vivek Singh Katta, surrendered before Court below.
17.09.2020, Shaswat Singh @ Golu, Prabhakar Upadhyay, Naveen @ Aayu Singh
19.9.2020, Hemant Singh Surrendered before Court below
21.9.2020, Vijendra Singh @ Babbu, surendered before Court below
28.9.2020, Ravi Pratap Singh @ Sammi arrested.
08.10.2021, Raja Babu Vishwkarma
16.10.2021, Atul Vishvkarma and Abhinav Singh, surrendered before Court below.
19.10.2021 Vishal Singh, arrested
Abhishek Singh @ Hani was already under custody at Bagpat Jail.
20.11.2020, Kamlesh Gupta and Rahul Kumar Gupta.
28. After arrest of aforementioned accused, Investigating Officer made following recoveries from some of the above named accused applicants. On the pointing of Shailu Guru @ Sanjeev Sharma, Investigating Officer recovered the Apache Motorcycle having Engine No. CE4FF2508984 on 08.10.2020. Investigating Officer on 29.09.2020 recovered a country-made pistol of 0.315 bore alongwith one live cartridge on the pointing of Hemant Singh. One Swift Car bearing Registration No. U.P. 65 DQ 0703 as well as one 32 bore pistol along with one magazine and two live cartridges were recovered on the pointing of Vivek Singh Katta. On 30.09.2020, Investigating Officer recovered a 32 bore pistol along with magazine, one live cartridge and one Splender Motorcycle bearing Registration No. UP 62 AW 5089 on the pointing of Vijendra Singh @ Babboo. Ultimately, on 12.12.2020 Investigating Officer recovered a 32 bore pistol along with two live cartridges on the pointing of Ravi Pratap Singh. On 17.9.2020, Investigating Officer arrested Shashwat Singh on 17.9.2020 and recovered two mobile phones and Rs. 1300/- from his person. Vishal Singh was arrested on 17.9.2020 and a mobile phone and Rs. 1500/- were recovered from his person.
29. Apart from the recoveries of vehicles and fire arms alleged to have been used in the commission of crime, Investigating Officer also recovered the CCTV footage from different locations which also form part of the case diary. The details of same are as under:
I. First CCTV footage is regarding the place of occurrence, which was recovered from the CCTV camera installed in the house of Sanjeev Kumar Gupta.
ii. Second CCTV footage was recovered from the CCTV camera installed in the shop of Govind Sweets House, Hukulganj Tiraha.
Iii. Third CCTV footage was recovered from Vinayak and Shivam Apartment, Ganeshpur, Tarna, P.S. Shivpur District-Varanasi.
30 Investigating Officer also collected the call detail reports of the charge sheeted accused. Same are also part of the case diary. As per the said C.D.R. Reports, it is apparent that frequent and long conversation took place between the accused. Investigating Officer has also prepared a diagram depicting the place of accused and the number of calls made by them to each other.
31. Subsequently the owners of different CCTV cameras from where aforementioned CCTV footage were obtained, have given their certificates, which are on record as C.D. Parcha No. 52 dated 11.12.2020.
32. On the basis of statements of aforesaid witnesses, the recoveries made on the pointing of some of the accused and other material collected by Investigating Officer, during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of named accused as well as unknown accused mentioned in the F.I.R. is not established. To the contrary, it is the complicity of various other persons, who hatched the conspiracy to commit the murder of Abhishek Singh @ Prince, who actually committed the crime came to surface. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet dated 13.12.2020 whereby accused
i. Vivek Singh Katta has been charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307,120B, 216A and 34 I.P.C. and 3/25/ 27 Arms Act.
ii. Accused- Ravipratap Singh has been charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307,120B, 216A and 34 I.P.C.
iii. Accused- Hemant Singh has been charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307,120B, 216A and 34 I.P.C. and 3/25 Arms Act.
iv. Accused- Vijendra Singh has been charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307,120B, 216A and 34 I.P.C. and 3/25 Arms Act.
v. Accused- Atul Vishwarkarma has been charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307,120B, 216A and 34 I.P.C.
vi. Accused- Manish Singh @ Sonu has been charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307,120B, 216A and 34 I.P.C.
vii. Accused- Shaswat Singh has been charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307,120B, 216A and 34 I.P.C.
viii. Accused- Prabhakar Upadhayay has been charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307,120B, 216A and 34 I.P.C
ix. Accused Vishal Singh has been charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307,120B, 216A
and 34 I.P.C.
x. Accused- Naveen @ Ayush Singh has been charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307,120B, 216A and 34 I.P.C.
xi. Accused- Raja Babu Vishwakarma has been charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307,120B, 216A and 34 I.P.C.
xii. Accused- Abhinav Singh has been charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307,120B, 216A and 34 I.P.C.
xiii. Accused- Rahul Kumar has been charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307,120B, 216A and 34 I.P.C.
xiv. Accused- Kamlesh Gupta has been charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307,120B, 216A and 34 I.P.C
xv. Accused- Rahul Kumar Gupta has been charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307,120B, 216A and 34 I.P.C.
33. Counsel for the parties jointly contend that two of the accused whose complicity came to surface during course of investigation, namely, Roshan Gupta @ Kittu died on 27.11.2020, whereas Manish Singh @ Sonu has already been shot dead in Police encounter.
34. On the basis of above, the charge-sheeted accused can be easily divided in two broad categories. One set of accused are the conspirators of the crime namely Shaswat Singh, Prabhakar Upadhyay, Vishal Singh, Naveen @ Ayush, Raja babu Vishwakarma, Abhinav Singh, Abhishek Singh @ Hani and the other set of accused is that of assailants and their companions, whose presence was found at the time and place of occurrence i.e. Manish Singh @ Sonu (role of shooting), Vivek Singh Katta (role of shooting), Ravi Pratap Singh @ Sammi (Driver of Swift Car), Hemant Singh (Co-passenger in Swift Car), (Co-passenger in swift car) Vijendra Singh @ Babbu (Driver of Splendor Motorcycle), Atul Vishwakarma (Driver of Apache Motorcycle),
35. Applicants filed their bail applications before court below, which have been rejected vide different orders. Thus feeling aggrieved by aforesaid, applicants have now approached this Court by means of aforementioned bail applications seeking their enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
36. Mr. V. P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant- Vijendra Singh contends that applicant Vijendra Singh is not named in F.I.R. which has been registered on 28.8.2020 at 17.38 hours, whereas the date and time of incident is 28.8.2020 at 10.30 hours. It is thus contended that when the F.I.R. itself was lodged with inordinate delay and the applicant having not been named in the said F.I.R., his subsequent implication in the crime in question along with others on the basis of call details collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation speaks in volume regarding false implication of applicant.
37. It is then contended that from perusal of annexure 6 at page 67/68 of the paper book pertaining to applicant Vijendra Singh, it is apparent that prior to the registration of the F.I.R. personnel of Forensic Science Field Unit came on the spot at around 11.20 a.m. Apart from above, Annexures 2, 3, 4 and 7 to the bail application and various G.D. entries clearly reveal the arrival and involvement of police before the registration of the F.I.R. It is thus contended that the registration of F.I.R. took place after commencement of the de-facto investigation wherein the name of applicant has not been mentioned which raises a valid defence in favour of applicant.
38. Learned Senior counsel then submits that the F.I.R. giving rise to this application for bail was registered on 28.8.2020. However, Investigating Officer without proceeding with the investigation in consonance with the allegations made in the F.I.R. but for reasons best known to him examined a police informer. On the basis of above, Investigating Officer now proceeded to investigate the complicity of accused disclosed in the statement of police informer i.e. Vivek Singh Katta and others. Aforesaid conduct of Investigating Officer creates a doubt in the prosecution case, which otherwise generates a valid defence in favour of applicant. Reference has also been made to Annexure 11 (page 96 of the paper book) in support of above.
39. It is further contended that name of applicant has figured (in the case diary) only on the basis of the statement of police informer who is also alleged to have identified the applicant. Such identification of the applicant cannot be taken as ipso-facto proof of his identity.
40. Learned Senior counsel further contends that in the present case, the F.I.R. giving rise to this application for bail was lodged with an inordinate delay of almost eight hours from the time of occurrence. In spite of above, applicant was not named in the F.I.R. The implication of applicant and others have come into existence after four days of the occurrence i.e. on 2.9.2020, when the statement of first informant was recorded. The first informant in his statement has stated that he was under fear and also under the spell of nervousness and therefore he could not mention the real accused in the F.I.R. The same is highly improbable and subject to trial evidence. Reference in this regard is made to Annexure 13 (page 112 of the paper book).
41. According to learned Senior counsel, injured Deepak Gaur was examined by Investigating Officer after two months of the occurrence i.e. on 6.11.2020. Even the aforesaid injured witness did not support the prosecution story, in so far as it implicates the applicant in the crime in question.
42. Learned Senior Counsel has also contended that the eyewitness Rajesh Singh was examined on 17.9.2020. This witness is alleged to have identified the driver of splendar motorcycle, the pillion passenger of which is alleged to have fired gun shot upon deceased. Aforesaid witness in his statement has not disclosed the source on the basis of which he could identify applicant. Aforesaid issue can, therefore, be decided effectively only during the course of the trial. Reference in this regard is made to Annexure 14 (page 124-125 of the paper book).
43. In the submission of learned Senior Counsel, applicant has been identified on the basis of C.C.T.V. footage with the aid of the statement of police informer. Aforesaid fact can be proved only during the course of trial.
44. Referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel submits that the call details sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant have been detailed in paragraph 34 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application of applicant. Applicant is permanent resident of a place, which is hardly 20-22 kilometres away from the house of co-accused Vivek Singh Katta. Applicant has business relation with Vivek Singh Katta. Therefore, telephonic conversation with co-accused Vivek Singh Katta cannot be inferred as part of the conspiracy hatched to cause the murder of Abhisekh Singh alias Prince.
45. It is lastly contended that event otherwise applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 20.9.2020 As such he has undergone more than 18 months of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. On the aforesaid premise, learned Senior Counsel concluded by submitting that applicant be enlarged on bail.
46. Mr. Manish Tiwary, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Syed Imran Ibrahim and Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, the learned Counsel for applicants- Prabhakar Upadhyay and Vishal Singh contends that applicants are not named in F.I.R. Only., two named accused namely Shardul Singh and Sureshwar Rai have been nominated as named accused, whereas an unknown person has also been arraigned as an accused in the F.I.R. giving rise to this application for bail.
47. Investigating Officer claims to have examined a police informer on 28.8.2020 (as evident from C.D. Parcha No. 1), wherein it was alleged that the deceased had enmity with Vivek Singh Katta. Reference in this regard is made to Annexure 5 at page 85 of the paper book of applicant Prabhakar Upadhyay. He has then referred to C.D. Parcha No. 2 dated 29.8.2020, whereby a C.C.T.V. footage was obtained. As per the said C.C.T.V. footage, one motorcycle driven by Vijendra Singh alias Babbu and a four wheeler in which Vivek Singh Katta and Ravi Pratap Singh were seen sitting along with another unknown person. Investigating Officer proceeded to investigate the matter in the light of above. Resultantly, a U turn was taken by Investigating Officer, whereby he abandoned the investigation of the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. The statement of the first informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. by the Investigating Officer on 2.9.2020, vide C.D. Parcha No. 4. Applicant Vishal Singh has been implicated in the crime in question on the basis of aforesaid statement of first informant. Subsequent to above, statement of Reeta Gaur, widow of deceased Balmiki Gaur, was recorded. However, aforesaid witness has not implicated applicant Vishal Singh in the crime in question. After 18 days of the occurrence, Investigating Officer on the basis of statement of police informer as is explicit from C.D. Parcha No. 9 dated 16.9.2020 has implicated this applicant in the crime in question. There is no evidence on record prior to 16.9.2020 on the basis of which, applicant could be christened as a conspirator of the crime. The recoveries made from applicant upon his arrest on 17.9.2020 i.e. Rs.1,500/- cash and a mobile phone are not connected with the crime in question. The implication of applicant as a conspirator of the crime in question is on the basis of C.D.R. records and conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer regarding complicity of applicant in the crime in question, on the basis of above, which has been depicted by means of a diagram showing proximity of applicant with other accused. The same is, however, not conclusive proof of the charge alleged against applicants, inasmuch as the text of the conversation has not yet been discovered. As such, no presumption regarding culpability of applicant in the crime in question can be drawn. It is thus contended that as per the material on record applicant has been assigned the role of a conspirator. According to learned Senior Counsel, conspiracy is a closed door affair and therefore subject to trial evidence. It is lastly contended that applicants Vishal Singh and Prabhakar Upadhyay do have criminal history to their credit. However, the same is negligible and has also been duly explained in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the affidavits filed in support of the respective bail applications as well as in paragraphs 18 and 20 of the rejoinder affidavit filed in the bail application of Prabhakar Upadhyay. Applicants are in jail since 17.9.2020. As such, they have undergone more than 18 months of incarceration. It is thus urged that applicants Prabhaker Upadhyay and Vishal Singh are liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
48. Mr. Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, the learned counsel for applicant-Hemant Singh submits that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. In the F.I.R. giving rise to this application for bail only two persons namely, Shardul Singh and Siveshwar Rai have been nominated as named accused. The Investigating Officer claims to have been informed by an informer regarding enmity of deceased with one Vivek Singh Katta as is explicit from C.D.1 dated 28.8.2020. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer recovered the C.C.T.V. Footage as is evident from C.D.1 dated 29.8.2020. As per the said C.C.T.V. Footage, one motorcycle was seen being driven by Vijendra Singh @ Babbu. A four wheeler car was also seen in which Vivek Singh Katta and Ravi Pratap along with an unknown person were sitting. After aforesaid recovery, the investigation took a U turn and proceeded in the light of above. The statement of first informant was recorded by Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 2.9.2020 as is discernible from Parcha No.4 of case diary. The first informant departed from the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. The first informant now implicated Vivek Singh Katta and Others in the crime in question. Applicant is alleged to be sitting in the four wheeler. Furthermore, during course of investigation, Investigating Officer viewed the C.C.T.V. Footage of some building and on the basis of above, he came to identify five of the accused persons namely, Vivek Singh Katta, Ravi Pratap Singh, Atul Vishwkarma, Vijendra Singh @ Kakku and one shooter. However, Investigating Officer has clearly failed to record as to on what basis the identity of aforesaid accused was revealed to him. The statement of Smt. Rita Gaur wife of deceased Balmiki Gaur was also recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. However, the same in no manner implicates applicant Hemant Singh in the crime in question. The name of applicant has not figured in the entire case diary. The only fact which has come to surface during course of investigation is that applicant is co-passenger of four wheeler seen in the CCTV footage. Upto this stage, there is no legally admissible evidence establishing the actual commission of the crime by applicant. Applicant was arrested on 19.9.2020 and after 12 days, a false recovery is alleged to have been made on his pointing out i.e. a country made pistol along with one live cartridge. The Investigating Officer has collected the CDR records of some of the accused. On the basis of above, Investigating Officer has prepared a diagram to show the proximity of some of the accused with each other. However, that by itself is not sufficient to conclude the culpability on the part of applicant Hemant Singh to commit the crime in question. Until and unless the contents of CDR reports are obtained, it cannot be inferred that applicant has also conspired in the commission of crime. No attempt has been made by Investigating Officer to collect the call details of the mobile phone of applicant on the date of incident. Injured Deepak Gaur who was also examined by Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. has not implicated applicant in the crime in question. On the basis of above, it cannot be said with certainty that complicity of applicant in the crime in question stands established beyond doubt. Reference has also been made to the affidavit filed by Smt. Priyanka Singh and some others before the S.S.P. Varanasi with regard to absence of applicant at the time and place of occurrence on the relevant date. However, the said affidavits have not been made part of the case diary by Investigating Officer. The applicant earlier approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16559 of 2020 (Priyanka Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) and this Court passed the order dated 8.1.2021. Co-accused Abhinav Pratap Singh has already been granted bail by Court below vide order dated 6.2.2021, passed in Bail Application No. 527 of 2021. Case of present applicant is similar and identical to aforesaid accused. As such applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. No proper identification parade was carried out to establish the identity of the applicant. In the absence of above, it cannot be definitely concluded that complicity of applicant is established in the crime in question. Applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is a student of LLB, VI th semester in Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. As such, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
49. Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant Ravi Pratap @ Sammi submits that the F.I.R. in respect of the incident in question was lodged on 28.8.2020. However, the applicant is not named in aforesaid F.I.R. Statement of first informant was recorded by Investigating Officer on 2.9.2020. It is in this statement that first informant has disclosed the name of applicant along with other co-accused for committing the crime in question. However, the source of such information has not been disclosed. No explanation has been offered regarding the fact as to why name of applicant Ravi Pratap Singh @ Sammi was not mentioned in the F.I.R.
50. It is next contended that the prosecution has heavily relied upon different CCTV footage collected by Investigating Officer from different locations. The original CCTV footage have not been shown. It is the photographs taken from the said CCTV footage which were shown to the informant. However, there is no mention of the same in the statement of first informant. Reference is made to page 38-39 of the bail application of applicant Ravi Pratap Singh @ Sammi.
51. According to Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, no test identification parade of applicant was conducted for identification of applicant by any of the alleged witnesses. As such, failure on the part of Investigating Officer, in not undertaking aforesaid exercise is absolutely illegal as the same does not confirm to the procedure prescribed under law.
52. The alleged recovery of pistol of 0.32 bore with two live cartridges in the magazine from applicant is false and implanted. There is no independent witnesses of recovery. Upto this stage, there is nothing on record to show that aforesaid weapon recovered from applicant is connected with the crime in question in any manner.
53. It is also contended by Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, that none of the witnesses examined upto this stage has assigned the role of firing to present applicant. Applicant is said to be sitting in the car, whereas the role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Vivek Singh Katta. None of the witnesses has stated that applicant has played an active role in the commission of the crime in question. Apart from above, Deepak Gaur, the injured witness has not named the applicant in his statement before Investigating Officer. Reference in this regard is made to page 49 of the bail application. It is further contended that name of applicant is allegedly disclosed by co-accused Prabhakar Upadhyay. However, the supposed eye witness of the occurrence namely, Rita Gaur who is also the widow of deceased Balmiki Gaur has not identified the applicant nor any effort was made by Investigating Officer to get the identity of the applicant established by conducting a test identification parade. As such, the alleged disclosure of the name of applicant is absolutely false. The call detail reports heavily relied upon by prosecution do not in any manner connect the applicant with the crime in question.
54. According to Mr. Shukla, the Electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution are not admissible by virtue of section 65-B of Evidence Act, inasmuch as the certificate has been obtained on a printed proforma with their essentials. In the submission of learned counsel for applicant, the same appears to have been obtained belatedly by coercing the witnesses. As such, the document in this regard in the case diary is not worthy of reliance.
55. It is lastly contended that even otherwise applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 12.12.2020, as such he has undergone more than one year of incarceration. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
56. Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant Naveen @ Ayush has adopted the arguments urged by Mr. Manish Tiwary, learned senior counsel for applicants-Vishal Singh and Prabhakar Upadhyay. It is then contended that case of applicant is similar to that of co-accused Prabhakar Upadhyay. Applicant is also not named in the F.I.R. His name has come to surface in the second statement of the police informer. Applicant has criminal history of one case, in which he has already been enlarged on bail. There is no recovery from applicant. Applicant has been assigned the role of conspirator of the crime. According to learned counsel, conspiracy is a closed door affair and subject to trial evidence. Applicant is in jail since 17.9.2020. As such he has undergone more than 18 months of incarceration. It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
57. Mr. Kumar Ashutosh, the learned counsel for applicant- Shaswat Singh contends that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Applicant is innocent and has been implicated in the crime in question on account of malafide on the part of police of concerned Police Station. The first informant in his statement before Investigating Officer has also not nominated applicant in the crime in question. Name of applicant has come to surface only on 06.09.2020 when Investigating Officer examined a police informer. The police informer so examined has implicated applicant in the conspiracy hatched to commit the crime and further provided an escape root to other co-accused. Reference has been made to C.D. Parcha No. 9 dated 16.09.2020 of the case diary. Copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Applicant was arrested on the basis of statement of police informer on 17.09.2020. Two mobile phones and Rs. 1300/- were recovered from his person. However, the same do not relate to the crime in question. Applicant has been charge-sheeted on the basis of confessional statement of applicant and Vivek Singh Katta even when the confessional statement of an accused is not admissible in law. Injured Deepak Gaur in his statement has not implicated applicant in the crime in question. Applicant was initially charge-sheeted, vide charge sheet dated 13.12.2020 under Sections 120B, 216A and 34 I.P.C. However, subsequently investigating officer submitted supplementary charge-sheet dated 18.12.2020 against applicant whereby applicant has been charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B, 216A and 34 I.P.C., not on account of any further investigation but on the ground that there was typographical error in the earlier charge-sheet. Role assigned to applicant in the crime in question is that of a conspirator. However, no credible evidence has been collected by Investigating Officer regarding above. The C.D.R. reports relied upon by the Investigating Officer for inferring the guilt of applicant as conspirator of the crime in question is misconceived as the contents of the call details have not been collected. Applicant has thus been implicated in the crime in question on the basis of suspicion. It is lastly contended that applicant has criminal history of one case, in which he has already been enlarged on bail. Applicant is in jail since 17.9.2020 As such he has undergone more than 18 months of incarceration. It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
58. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for first informant has submitted written submissions in opposition to the present bail applications. For ready reference, the same is extracted herein under:-
59 Present Bail Applications relate to Case Crime No. 145 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 216A, 120B, and 34 IPC Police Station Jaitpura, District Varanasi.
60 The deceased Abhishek Singh @ Prince was an Advocate practicing at Civil Court, Varanasi as well as Chandauli. Some of his clients used to deal-in plotting business and were business competitors of some of the co-accused persons. As such some of the accused persons had warned the deceased many times to abstain himself from doing pairvi on behalf of their competitors but he ignored them.
61. On 16.08.2013 at about 05:45 P.M., one Vishal Singh, co-accused of the present case, had lodged an FIR against the deceased on false grounds with Police Station Ramnagar, District Varanasi, bearing Case Crime No. 132 of 2013 under Sections 307, 394 and 506 IPC.
62. On the intervening night of 09/10.08.2017, Vivek Singh Katta and Abhishek Singh Hany, other Co-accused of the present case, attacked the house of deceased to kill him but unfortunately, Aasif Ansari, a friend of deceased Abhishek Singh @ Prince, was killed by them on 10.08.2017. The deceased Abhishek Singh @ Prince had lodged an FIR about the said incident with Police Station Cantt, District Varanasi, bearing Case Crime No. 0794 of 2017.
63 On 28.08.2020 at about 10.30 A.M. deceased Abhishek Singh along with the injured Deepak Gaur were on their way for some important work at Chandauli Court meanwhile deceased Abhishek Singh @ Prince and one passer by namely Balmiki Gaur were shot dead and Deepak Gaur sustained fire arm injuries.
64 On 28.08.2020 at about 10.10 a.m., H.C. Vijendra Kumar Chaudhary admitted the deceased Abhishek Singh @ Prince at S.S.P.G. Regional District Hospital, Varanasi but by mistake he disclosed the name of the deceased Abhishek Singh @ Prince as Sanjay Kumar Singh on the basis of Adhar Card recovered from the body of the deceased Abhishek Singh @ Prince.
65. On 28.08.2020 at about 01:00 p.m., someone informed the wife of deceased and his family about the said incident. Believing upon the information so received, wife of Abhishek Singh @ Prince and his family members immediately rushed to S.S.P.G. Regional District Hospital, Varanasi, where they identified the deceased Abhishek Singh and disclosed to the authorities that the name of deceased is Abhishek Singh and not Sanjay Kumar Singh.
66 On 28.08.2020 at about 2.30 p.m., Sub Inspector Sandeep Kumar Tiwari prepared inquest report of the deceased Abhishek Singh at S.S.P.G. Regional District Hospital, Varanasi in presence of wife of deceased and his family members.
67. On 28.08.2020 at about 4:00 p.m., post mortem Examination of the body of deceased Abhishek Singh was conducted at S.S.P.G. Regional District Hospital, Varanasi.
68. After that Kailash Singh, the real uncle of the deceased Abhishek Singh rushed to Police Station Jaitpura, District Varanasi, where he lodged an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 145 of 20920 with Police Station Jaitpura, District Varanasi about the said incident on 28.08.2020 at about 05:38 p.m.
69. On 29.08.2020 Investigating Officer of the case has received footage of CCTV Camera installed at the house of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar situated in front of place of occurrence and CCTV camera installed in Govind Sweet House situate at Hukulganj Tiraha, near place of occurrence and recorded the statement of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar.
70. On 01.09.2020, the Investigating Officer of the case received information from Police informer that accused persons of the case are living in a flat at Sri Vinayakam Shivam Apartment, for last three months. Believing upon the information, the Investigating Officer of the case collected the footage of CCTV Camera installed in Sri Vinayakam Shivam Apartment and recorded the statement of Sales Head Surya Dubey of Sri Vinayakam Shivam Apartment Ganeshpur Tarana P.S. Shivpur.
71. On 19.09.2002, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of Eye-witness Rajesh Singh under section 161 Cr.P.C.
72. On 20.09.2020, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of Co-accused Vivek Singh Katta under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
73. On 07.11.2020, the Investigating Officer collected the CDR of cell phone of co-accused Vivek Singh Katta, Prabhakar Upadhyay and other co-accused persons.
74. All the applicants are hard core criminals, having criminal history. They are very important and active members of an organized gang headed by Vivek Singh Katta, who always used to provide shelter to hard core criminals. If the applicants are enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble Court, there is a great apprehension of their absconding and also tempering the witnesses.
76. Under the fear and pressure of the applicants and their Gang, Mr. Kailash Singh, the real uncle of the deceased Abhishek Singh @ Prince has lodged the First Information Report dated 28.02.2020 against two other persons.
77. The deceased Abhishek Singh @ Prince was the only son of his parents. The parents of the deceased Abhishek Singh @ Prince are not of sound mind because of their old age and shock. As such they were not in the position of lodging the First Information Report.
78 Due to shock of the murder of her husband the widow of deceased namely Suman Singh was not in a position to lodge the First Information Report regarding the incident.
79. As per Ante-mortem injury reports, deceased Balmiki Gaur has sustained injuries caused by 32 Bore pistol shot while deceased Abhishek Singh has sustained injuries caused by 315 Bore gun shot.
80. The Investigating Officer of the case has received three pieces of CCTV Footage from the house of Sanjeev Gupta, from Govind Sweet House and from Sri Vinayakam Shivam Apartment, respectively.
81. During investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case has recorded the statements of three independent witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. In their respective statements, they have proved the conspiracy of the incident and presence of all the co-accused persons in that conspiracy, which is evident from the bare perusal of Parcha No. 58 of the case diary.
82. During investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case has recovered one country made pistol and one live bullet of 315 bore each from the possession of Hemant, a white coloured Vivo Mobile bearing nos. 9415402121, 8115865555 from the possession of Prabhakar Upadhyay, one pistol 32 bore along with Magazine and one live bullet and one splendor bike from the possession of Vijendra Singh, on HF Delux Bike bearing registration No. UP 65 AK 1005 from the possession of Naveen Singh, one pistol 32 bore alongwith Magazine and two live bullet from the possession of Ravi Pratap @ Sammi and one blue coloured Vivo Mobile having nos. 9161112222, 7376474747, and one black coloured Samsung Mobile having nos. 7849933333, 9125955555 from the possession of Shashwat Singh.
83. Ravi Pratap Sing, Vivek Singh Katta, Hemant Singh, Manish Singh Sonu and Vijendra Singh, Atul Vishwakarma were physically present at the place of occurrence, when the incident took place.
84. The Investigating Officer of the case has complied all the four essential ingredients of section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is evident from the bare perusal of Parcha Nos. 24, 40 and 52 of the case diary.
85. The Investigating Officer of the case, collected call details of every person and has given its details, which is a relevant piece of evidence under sections 6, 8 and 9 of Evidence Act.
86 The Investigating Officer of the case, after collecting credible evidence, has submitted charge sheet against all the applicants on 13.12.2020 and 18.12.2020, respectively.
87. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. along with learned brief holder and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for first informant have opposed these applications for bail. They jointly submit that even though applicants are not named in the F.I.R., but they are charge-sheeted accused. As such, applicants do not deserve any indulgence by this Court.
88. According to learned A.G.A. and the counsel for first informant, occurrence in question has been witnessed by three eye witnesses namely Reeta Gaur (wife of injured Balmiki Gaur), Rajesh Singh, and Arvind Singh @ Sonu. The statements of aforesaid witnesses clearly prove that the occurrence in question occurred at the nominated time and place, whereas the statements of Rajesh Singh and Arvind Singh @ Sonu explain the manner of occurrence. When the statements of aforesaid witnesses are compared with the two CCTV footage recovered by Investigating Officer from and in proximity to the place of occurrence, the complicity of charge-sheeted accused namely Manish Singh @ Sonu (role of shooting), Vivek Singh Katta (role of shooting), Ravi Pratap (Driver of Swift Car), Hemant Singh (co-passenger in Swift Car), Vijendra Singh @ Babbu (Driver of Splendar motorcycle) and Atul Vishwarkarma (Driver of Apache Motorcycle) is clearly established in the commission of crime in question. The credibility and reliability of aforesaid witnesses is beyond doubt upto this stage, inasmuch as, no enmity has been alleged by charge-sheeted accused against aforesaid eye-witnesses. Further-more there is nothing on record on the basis of which it could be deduced that aforesaid witnesses have falsely implicated above mentioned charge-sheeted accused in the crime in question by giving false statements. Neither any motive has been attached to the aforesaid eye-witnesses for giving statements against aforementioned charge-sheeted accused nor there is any animus apparent with the above named witnesses against aforementioned charge-sheeted accused.
89. In the occurrence giving rise to these applications for bail one Deepak Gaur has sustained serious gun shot injuries. No enmity of the accused was in existence with the injured Deepak Gaur. The injured has sustained gun shot injuries on account of indiscriminate firing made by few of the charge-sheeted accused. There is nothing on record, on the basis of which, the statement of this injured witness could be discarded. No explanation has been offered by the accused/applicants as to how this injured sustained fire arm injuries when the occurrence itself is being doubted. It is well settled that when the statement of an injured witness is sought to be dislodged then there is a reciprocal burden upon accused to explain the manner in which the injured sustained injuries. Applicants have failed to discharge this burden upto this stage. As such, the statement of aforementioned injured witness is worthy of reliance.
90. It is further contended by learned A.G.A. as well as the learned counsel for first informant that in the statements of the witnesses examined during the course of investigation, it has come in evidence that two motorcycles and a Swift Car were involved in the commission of the crime. The statements of the witnesses are further corroborated from different C.C.T.V. Footage as well as empties recovered by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence during the course of investigation. The two motorcycles and the swift car used in the commission of crime have been recovered on the pointing of Sailu Guru @ Sanjay Sharma, Vijendra @ Babbu and Vivek Singh Katta. This also is an incriminating circumstance and corroborates the complicity of Manish Singh @ Sonu (role of shooting), Vivek Singh Katta (role of shooting), Ravi Pratap Singh (Driver of Swift Car), Hemant Singh (Co-passenger in Swift Car), Vijendra Singh @ Babbu (Driver of Splendor Motorcycle), Atul Vishwakarma (Driver of Apache Motorcycle) in the commission of the crime in question. Resultantly, it is urged that the circumstantial evidence corroborates the prosecution story.
91. As per the post-mortem reports of the deceased- Abhishek Singh and Balmiki Gaur, the discharge slip of injured Deepak Gaur, the manner of occurrence unfolded in the statements of witnesses above named stands corroborated. In short, the medical evidence supports the ocular version of the occurrence. Upto this stage, no such material has been pointed out on behalf of applicants before the Court to doubt the same.
92. The recoveries of different C.C.T.V. footage from different points by the Investigating Officer clearly complete the chain of circumstances leading to the occurrence. In this view of the matter no distinction can be drawn in between the accused i.e. the conspirators of the crime and the actual assailants along with others present at the time and place of occurrence.
93. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for first informant has vehemently opposed the various submissions urged by Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for applicant-Ravi Pratap @ Simmi regarding innocence of aforesaid applicant. According to learned counsel for first informant, credibility or reliability of eyewitnesses cannot be brushed aside on hyper technical analysis or on the ground that there is another view of the matter. The fact that the identity of deceased was not disclosed upto the stage of inquest by itself is not so sufficient so as to assume the innocence of aforesaid applicant. The deceased was an Advocate by profession. The Adhar Card of one Sanjay Kumar Singh was found in the pocket of deceased and it was on that basis that the deceased was initially identified as Sanjay Kumar Singh. The same was rectified subsequently, when the identity of deceased was discovered as Abhishekh Singh @ Prince upon the disclosure made by his widow and other family members. Considering the profession of deceased, the presence of Aadhaar Card of another person in the pocket of deceased is not an unnatural circumstance. Therefore, simply on aforesaid ground, the innocence of the accused is not established.
94. According to learned counsel for informant, there are two C.C.T.V. footage in respect of the place of occurrence. When both the C.C.T.V. footage are examined serially, then it is apparent that the events as recorded are part of the same transaction and therefore can be relied upon on the principle of res-gastae as contained in Section 6 of the Evidence Act.
95. The microscopic analysis of the credibility of the eyewitnesses undertaken by learned counsel for applicant Ravi Pratap Singh alias Sammi is a fanciful doubt and by itself does not create a dent in the prosecution case or the credibility/reliability of the eye-witness of the occurrence or the occurrence itself.
96. According to the learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for first informant, the criminality committed by charge sheeted accused including present applicants is interlinked and intertwined. Therefore, same cannot be segregated or separated. All the applicants have been charge sheeted under section 34 IPC. Therefore, upto this stage common intention is prima facie established against all the charge sheeted accused including applicants. They, therefore, submit that applicants do not deserve any indulgence by this Court or any sympathy of this Court on the ground of classification i.e. the conspirators and the actual assailants along with co-accused who were found to be present at the time and place of occurrence. In support of above, reliance is place upon the judgement of Supreme Court in Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. 2016 (15) SCC 422:
97. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for first informant vehemently submits that the complicity of applicants Sashwat Singh, Prabhakar Upadhyay, Vishal Singh, Navin @ Ayush and others as conspirators of the crime is fully established from the record. He submits that cogent and reliable material exists on record to substantiate the charge of conspiracy against some of the charge-sheeted accused. To buttress his submission, he has referred to the following documents on record:- (i) CCTV footage of Vinayak Shivam Apartments, Shivpur, Varanasi, (ii) the C.D.R. Reports of all the accused, (iii) the statement of the owner of the flat namely Soni Gupta, (iv) the statement of Surya Dubey (Sales Head) and (v) Ansuman Singh and Suresh Kumar Bharti.
98. Reference has also been made to the various judgments/orders of the Supreme Court as well as this Court in support the submission that the parameters laid down by Apex Court for establishing the charge of conspiracy are clearly satisfied in the present case against some of the charge-sheeted accused. The various orders passed by this Court have been pressed in support of the submission that in identical circumstances, similarly situate accused have been denied bail. As such, some of the applicants who are conspirators of the crime do not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The judgements relied upon by learned counsel for first informant are tabulated herien under:
(i) Firozuddin Basheeruddin and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala in Appeal No. 357-359 of 1998, decided on 20.8.2001
(ii) Gulab Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2001, decided on 9.12.2021
(iii) Anil Singh Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1814 of 2020, decided on 18.2.2020
(iv) Rakesh Prasad Vs. State of U.P., in Criminal Misc. Bail Applicatin No. 8328 of 2020, decided on 16.12.2020
(v) Gandhi Yadav Vs. State of U.P., in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44819 of 2020, decided on 4.2.2021
(vi) Ravindra @ Lalla Chaubey @ Ravindara Vs. State of U.P., in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49193 of 2020, decided on 20.9.2021.
99. In rejoinder, counsel for some of the applicants have sought to distinguish the case of conspirators of the crime from the actual assailants along with others who were present at the time and place of occurrence. They submit that conspiracy is a closed door affair. No motive is yet apparent against the conspirators of the crime to hatch the conspiracy. Simply on the ground that the alleged conspirators of the crime including the applicants namely Sashwat Singh, Prabhakar Upadhyay, Vishal Singh and Navin @ Ayush were seen together at the tube-well of Prabhakar Upadhyay and hatched the conspiracy of committing the crime in question as per the statements of Anshuman Singh and Suresh Kumar Bharti along with C.D.R. Reports and the C.C.T.V. footage of Vinayakam Shivam Apartments can be taken as pointers of conspiracy beyond doubt on the part of aforesaid accused and others. The statements of Ansuman Singh and Suresh Kumar Bharti, in whose statements, the element of conspiracy has cropped up against aforesaid applicants and others is not so clinching so as to exclude all other hypothesis but to conclude that conspiracy to commit the crime in question was hatched in the company of aforementioned accused-applicants and others.
100. Having heard learned Senior Counsel/learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. along with the learned brief holder for State, Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for first informant, and upon consideration of evidence on record, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court does not find any good or justifiable ground to enlarge the applicants Ravi Pratap Singh @ Sammi, Hemant Singh and Vijendra Singh on bail. As such, the bail applications of applicants- Ravi Pratap Singh @ Sammi, Hemant Singh and Vijendra Singh fail and are liable to be rejected. They are accordingly rejected.
101. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as noted herein above, and coupled with the fact co-accused Abhinav Pratap Singh has already been enlarged on bail by Court below and the case of applicants, Sashwat Singh, Prabhakar Upadhyay, Vishal Singh and Navin @ Ayush is similar and identical to aforesaid co-accused, they have made out a case for bail. Accordingly the bail applications of applicants Sashwat Singh, Prabhakar Upadhyay, Vishal Singh and Navin @ Ayush are liable to be allowed.
102. They are accordingly allowed.
103. Let the applicants- Sashwat Singh, Prabhakar Upadhyay, Vishal Singh and Navin @ Ayush involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds each and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) Applicants will not tamper with prosecution evidence.
(ii) Applicants will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) Applicants will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) Applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
104. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicants and send them to prison.
Order Date :- 27.5.2022 ”
7. Mr. Manish Tewary, the learned Senior Counsel for applicant contends that subsequent to the order dated 27.05.2022 passed by this Court, four prosecution witnesses namely P.W.-1 Kailash, P.W.-2 Rita, P.W.-3 Deepak and P.W.- Surya Devi have been examined upto this stage. The said witnesses have not supported the prosecution story as has emerged as per the material collected by the Investigating Officer during course of investigation. Much emphasis has been laid on the statement of injured Deepak, who is an eye witnesses of the occurrence but he has not identified the applicant. On the above premise, it is thus urged by learned senior counsel for applicant that no good ground exists to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant. He therefore submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. It is then contended that applicant is in custody since 19.09.2020. As such he has undergone almost three years of incarceration. In spite of the fact that a period of almost three years has rolled by from the date of submission of charge sheet, the trial has not yet concluded. Applicant cannot be held responsible for the delay in conclusion of trial as he is in custody. An accused has also the right to speedy trial. He has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in A.R. Antulay Vs. R. S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225. With reference to above he submits that since an accused has the right to speedy trial and the said right of the accused/applicant stands infringed on account of lackadaisical approach of the prosecution, he therefore contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that complicity of applicant is fully established as per the material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Learned A.G.A. with reference to paragraph 34 of the order passed on the first bail application of applicant submits that applicant is one of the accused, whose presence alongiwth other co-accused is established on the spot. Criminality committed by charge-sheeted accused is joint and common. An unlawful assembly was formed with a common intention as well as a common object to cause the death of the deceased. As such no exception can be carved out in the case of applicant. It is well settled that evaluation of the evidence which has emerged during the course of trial should not be undertaken by the court hearing the bail application even if it is a superior court. Dictates of prudence require that bail court should refrain from undertaking such an exercise as any observation made by the bail Court regarding the nature and impact of evidence which has emerged during the pendency of trial will affect the prosecution or defence. Accordingly, the submission urged by the learned senior counsel for applicant at this stage would amount to pre-empting the trial itself, which is not permissible in law. As such, no new or good ground has been made out in this repeat application for bail. It is thus contended that this repeat application for bail is liable to be rejected.
9. When confronted with above, the learned senior counsel for applicant could not over come the same.
10. Having heard the learned senior counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon consideration of material on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that since applicant is a charge sheeted accused, therefore, prima-facie his complicity in the crime in question stands established, upto this statge six prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined, the issue as to whether the complicity of applicant stand established in the crime in question as per the statements of the witnesses of fact examined upto this stage or not is such an issue regarding which no definite opinion can be drawn at this stage. In order to enlarge the applicant on bail, this court will have to return a finding regarding innocence of applicant as per the statements of witnesses examined up to this stage. The said exercise will amount to per-empting the trial. Thus even though, this court is a superior court, dictates of prudence require that no such exercise of evaluating the evidence which has emerged during the pendency of trial be undertaken by this Court. Therefore, irrespective of the submissions urged by the learned Senior Counsel for applicant but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court does not find any new or good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
11. As a result, present repeat application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.
12. It is accordingly rejected.
14. However, since applicant is in jail since 19.09.2020, therefore, court below is directed to expedite the pending sessions trial by fixing a minimum of four dates in a month spaced at regular interval. No unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either of the parties unless it is absolutely necessary.”
Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a charge sheeted accused and facing trial before Court. However, in view of subsequent event as has emerged, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 15.5.2025 passed by Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. ———— of 2025, arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5486 of 2025, whereby and whereunder co-accused Ravi Pratap Singh @ Simmi was enlarged on bail. It is apposite to mention here that that bail application of afrorementioned accused was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 09.08.2024. For ready reference, the order dated 15.05.2025 is extracted herein under:-
“1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by the impugned judgment and order dated 9th August, 2024 has rejected the appellant?s prayer for bail.
3. The appellant, figuring as an accused in FIR No. 0145 dated 28th August, 2020 registered with Police Station Jaitpura, District Varanasi, is in custody since 28.09.2020. It is alleged in the FIR that the appellant committed offence(s) punishable, inter alia, under Section(s) 302, 307 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record.
5. The counter affidavit of the respondent-State of Uttar Pradesh does not explain why, during the last six months, the trial has not progressed. Out of 38 witnesses, evidence of only six witnesses has been recorded till date. The progress of trial is, therefore, slow. That apart, the main assailant-Vivek Singh Katta has been granted bail. Also, the role of the appellant is limited to driving the car which was used in course of commission of the offence.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid factors, we are inclined to admit the appellant to an order for grant of bail pending trial.
7. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order.
8. The appellant shall be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court.
9. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
10. The appellant shall, however, appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless exempted; and should the appellant fail to appear on any date without justifiable cause or breach any of the terms and conditions for grant of bail, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
11. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid terms.
12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.”
Learned counsel for applicant submits that the only allegation that has emerged against applicant is that applicant was co passenger in the Swift Maruti Car, which was used in the commission of the crime in question. The person similarly situat6e and circumstanced has already been enlarged on bail, therefore,t eh applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. In view of above, he submits that in view of the fact and coupled with the fact that no such distinguishing feature has emerged on record, on the basis of which the case of present applicant can be so distinguished from other co-accused so as to deny the bail. In view of above and facts and reasons recorded in the order dated 15.5.2025 applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.
Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit. Applicant is in jail since 19.09.2020. As such, he has undergone more than 4 years and 10 months of incarceration. The charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. Furthermore, the trial of the applicant has already commenced. Upto this stage, six prosecution witnesses of fact havfe already deposed before Court below. However, the complicity of the present applicant has not emertged in the crime in question as per the deposition of the prosecution witnessess, who have deposed before Court below upto this stae. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for applicnt that considering the above applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. However, up to this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above conspectus, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State opposite party 1 has vehemently opposed the this application for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that since applicant is a charge sheeted accused and facing trial before Court below, therefore, no indulgence be granted by this Colurt in favour of applicant However, he could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.
Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for state, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that similary situate and circumstanced co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by Apex Court. The case of the applicant is on better footing inasmuch as applicant was only sitting in the car. In view of above and also facts and reasons recorded in the bail order of co-accused coupled with the fact that the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such distinguishing freature in the case of present applicant so as to distinguish his case from bailed out co-accused, therefore, in view of above, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, therefore , irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail and it is liable to be allowed
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Hemant Singh involved in Case Crime No. 145 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B, 216A and 34 IPC and Sections 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Jaitpur, District Varanasi, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice :-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 22.7.2025/HSM
[ad_2]
Source link