Patna High Court – Orders
Nirjesh Singh @ Naga Singh @ Brajesh … vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation … on 24 January, 2025
Author: Anjani Kumar Sharan
Bench: Anjani Kumar Sharan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39869 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-1999 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna
======================================================
NIRJESH SINGH @ NAGA SINGH @ BRAJESH SINGH @ VIRJESH Son
of Swaraj Singh R/o Mohalla - Moldiar Tola, Mokama, P.S.- Mokama,
District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation through Superintendent of Police, New
Delhi New Delhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aditya Prakash Sahay, Advocate
Mr. Shivanand Singh, Advocate
Ms. Ankita Kumari, Advocate
For the C.B.I. : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN
CAV
19 24-01-2025
Heard Mr. Aditya Prakash Sahay, learned counsel on
behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned
Senior Counsel on behalf of the C.B.I.
2. Petitioner is seeking for bail in connection with Sessions
Trial No.1301/2012 in R.C. Case No.4(S)/99 arising out of
Gardanibagh (Shastrinagar) P.S. Case No.336 of 1998,
registered for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 379/34,
120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected
four times by this Court. This is the fifth attempt of the
petitioner before this Court for releasing him on bail.
4. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that one Amrendra
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39869 of 2023(19) dt. 24-01-2025
2/6
Kumar lodged the fardbeyan at I.G.I.M.S., Patna on 13.06.1998
that he went to see Brij Bihari Prasad, a Minister, who was
under treatment at I.G.I.M.S. and the informant made allegation
that Bhupendra Nath Dubey, Mantu Tiwari, Munna Shukla, Shri
Prakash Shukla, Rajan Tiwari and many others made
indiscriminate firing killing the minister Brij Bihari Prasad and
his bodyguard on the spot.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated
in this case due to enmity. He is not named in FIR and he was
not apprehended on the spot. There is no recovery of
incriminating article from his possession. It is further submitted
that all the accused persons named in the FIR have been
acquitted by this Court. It is further submitted that for more than
13 years, out of 111 chargesheet witnesses, only one witness has
been examined by the prosecution. The petitioner has 70
criminal antecedent and was remanded in this case on
19.08.2011 and has been rotting in judicial custody since then.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Munawar vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors reported in (2021) 3 SCC 712 in which
the Apex Court has held that:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39869 of 2023(19) dt. 24-01-2025
3/6
11. The High Court’s view
draws support from a batch of decisions of
this Court, including in Shaheen Welfare
Assn., laying down that gross delay in
disposal of such cases would justify the
invocation of Article 21 of the Constitution
and consequential necessity to release the
undertrial on bail. It would be useful to
quote the following observations from the
cited case: (SCC p. 622, para 10)
“10. Bearing in mind the nature
of the crime and the need to protect the
society and the nation, TADA has prescribed
in Section 20(8) stringent provisions for
granting bail. Such stringent provisions can
be justified looking to the nature of the
crime, as was held in Kartar Singh case, on
the presumption that the trial of the accused
will take place without undue delay. No one
can justify gross delay in disposal of cases
when undertrials perforce remain in jail,
giving rise to possible situations that may
justify invocation of Article 21.”
7. He further relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in
the case of Praveen Rathore vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1268 and in the case of
Prabhakar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Reported
in (2020) 11 Supreme Court Cases 648.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the C.B.I. vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the chargesheet
was submitted against the petitioner showing him absconder, the
petitioner remained absconding for more than 13 years and
during the investigation, three eye witnesses who were present
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39869 of 2023(19) dt. 24-01-2025
4/6
on the spot have stated that the petitioner was also present at the
time of occurrence and have also fired upon the deceased. It
appears that the petitioner is accused in the present case and the
petitioner has more than 70 criminal antecedents, all are of
heinous nature. It is further submitted that all the original record
of the Sessions Trial No.613 of 2002 was sent to the Apex Court
by letter no.93 dated 21.04.2015 for reference in Cr. Appeal
No.2632-2640 of 2014. Now, the record has been received by
the Trial Court and learned Senior Counsel for the C.B.I.
submitted that trial may be concluded within two year of time.
9. I have heard both the sides. The case diary and status
report was called for and from their perusal, it appears that three
eye witnesses who were present on the spot have identified the
petitioner as an accused and on that basis petitioner has been
been made accused in the present case. Vide order dated
05.07.2024, status report was called for. In compliance thereof,
a report sent by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-
XXXIII, Patna, letter no.31, dated 29.08.2024, kept at Flag ‘C’,
whereby it is submitted that in this case charge has been framed
on 14.12.2012. Since then the proceeding of this case was not
moved further due to non-availability of original record of
Sessions Trial No.613 of 2002 and LCR. Now prosecution has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39869 of 2023(19) dt. 24-01-2025
5/6
submitted photocopy of record of Sessions Trial No.613 of
2002, before the learned Trial Court and one year of time is
likely to be taken in conclusion of the trial of this case, subject
to appearance of party and witnesses.
10. The petitioner relied upon the cases aforesaid are not
applicable in the present case because in the present case the
original record of the case file including the LCR was not
available before the learned Trial Court and due to which the
trial did not commence accordingly, but in the cases cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, this fact was silent, so they
are not applicable in the present case. Further, the petitioner has
70 criminal antecedents and all are of heinous nature, so, based
on the aforesaid grounds, I am not inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the bail petition is hereby
rejected.
11. Generally, this Court has not directed the Trial Court to
conclude the trial within a certain time limit, but in this case, the
petitioner is already in judicial custody for more than 13 years,
so based on this ground as well as considering the status report
sent by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,
XXXIII, Patna, it is directed to conduct the Trial day to day and
the conclude the same, preferably within a period of one year.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39869 of 2023(19) dt. 24-01-2025
6/6
The S.P., C.B.I., is also directed to produce the witnesses before
the Trial Court on each and every date without fail. If they fail
to perform as per the direction of this Court, then, they will be
held liable for non-compliance of this order.
12. However, petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for
bail if the trial is not concluded within a period of one year.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
shikha/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link