Allahabad High Court
Purushottam vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of … on 15 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40428 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13211 of 2024 Applicant :- Purushottam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Kant Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Shukla,Avnish Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant and counter affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant are taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anand Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the informant.
3. This is a second bail application. First bail application bearing Bail No.9595 of 2023 has been rejected by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan. vide order dated 03.06.2024. While rejecting the first bail application on 03.06.2024 this Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of one year but the trial has not been concluded till date.The order dated 03.06.2024 reads as under:
“1. All the above bail applications are connected with same crime number and have also been heard together. Thus, for the sake of convenience and for the purpose of appreciating the material available on record, these bail applications are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Shri Manish Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant -Virendra Singh @ Bade Singh in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13840 of 2023, Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant – Purushottam in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9595 of 2023, Shri Rajiva Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the applicant – Raghav Singh in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10800 of 2023 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Avnish Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant/complainant and perused the record.
3. These bail applications have been moved by the accused/applicants- Virendra Singh @ Bade Singh, Purushottam and Raghav Singh for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.0123 of 2023, under Sections 341, 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Majhila, District Hardoi, during trial.
4. Shri Manish Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant -Virendra Singh @ Bade Singh in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13840 of 2023 submits that it is a case of false implication and the applicant has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.
5. It is further submitted that F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Shri Anil Kumar, who is the father of the deceased, however, the F.I.R. as well as statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would itself reveal that he was not an eye witness and he has lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of information provided by some other persons and the name of the applicant has been mentioned in the F.I.R. only on account of hearsay evidence.
6. It is further submitted that the investigating officer in a hurry has arrested the accused persons of this crime and recorded their confessional statement and it is only on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused persons, the culpability of the applicant and other co-accused persons is shown to have surfaced.
7. It is also submitted that the statement of the injured, who is shown to be accompanying the deceased, was also recorded by the investigating officer, however, the name of the applicant was not stated by him as the assailant and other prosecution witnesses namely Pradeep Shukla, Anurag Shukla, Archit Kumar and Shivanshu appears to be planted witnesses and it is evident that a blind murder has been attributed to the applicant without there being any cogent evidence.
8. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 24.03.2023 and there is no hope of conclusion of the trial in near future and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.
9. Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant – Purushottam in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9595 of 2023 vehemently submits that apart from the grounds, which have been placed before this Court by learned counsel for the applicant – Virendra Singh @ Bade Singh, the case against the instant applicant is on different footing. Elaborating further, it is submitted that after lodging of the F.I.R., it was after 15 days, the statement of the injured Santosh Kumar Singh was recorded, wherein there was no whisper about the applicant while he was the best person to have known as to who have assaulted the deceased persons and him and prior to recording of his statement, just after 3 days of the lodging of the F.I.R., the police has arrested co-accused persons namely Virendra Singh @ Bade Singh, Chhotu Singh and Suraj and they are stated to have confessed their guilt. It is shown to have been stated by them that the applicant has facilitated the crime, however, in the individual confessional statement of these accused persons, there is no reference of the applicant.
10. It is further submitted that having regard to the fact that the injured witness of this crime has not taken the name of the applicant and his name has also not emerging in the confessional statement of the co-accused persons, who were arrested on 25.03.2023 and on the pointing of those, weapons of assault have also stated to have been recovered, the case against the applicant appears to be false. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 27.03.2023 and there is no hope of conclusion of the trial in near future and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.
11. Shri Rajiva Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the applicant – Raghav Singh in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10800 of 2023 while drawing attention of this Court towards the F.I.R. as well as the statement of the injured Santosh Kumar Singh and towards the postmortem reports of two deceased persons namely Amit Shukla and Ramakant vehemently submits that in the postmortem report of the deceased Ramakant, various stabbed wounds have been shown and in the F.I.R. assault has been shown by banka, hammer and hockey and any of these weapons may not cause injuries of the nature of stabbed wound and thus there is manifest contradiction between the ocular version of the incident and medical evidence.
12. It is vehemently submitted that when the informant noticed the contradiction in the F.I.R. and postmortem report of the deceased Ramakant, he in his additional statement has introduced screw driver (pechkash) as weapon of assault, which in the facts and circumstances of the case could not be believed. He submits that at the cost of repetition, it is to be considered that only surviving victim is the injured Santosh Kumar Singh, who has not taken the name of the applicant and this fact alone is sufficient to enlarge the applicant on bail.
13. While drawing attention of this Court towards other documentary evidence, it is submitted that it was a case of road traffic accident and on the basis of prior enmity has been given the colour of murder. In this regard, inquest report placed as Annexure No.2 has been highlighted, wherein it is stated that the deceased Ramakant and Amit Shukla have died in a road traffic accident and the information has been given by a ward-boy of C.H.C., Pihani, Hardoi. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 26.03.2023 and there is no hope of conclusion of the trial in near future and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.
14. Shri Avnish Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant/complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of bail of the applicants and submits that it is a case, where two persons namely Amit Shukla and Ramakant have been done to death and one Santosh Kumar Singh has sustained fatal injuries and apart from injured Santosh Kumar Singh, there are many other witnesses, whose statements have been recorded by the investigating officer and they have stated that the applicants were amongst those, who were assaulting the deceased persons and injured and thus keeping in view the fact that the matter pertains to double murder, the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail.
15. It is further submitted that bail application of co-accused person of the crime namely Jitendra Singh Alias Badakkey, whose case is at par with the instant applicants, has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11147 of 2023.
16. Learned A.G.A. also opposes the prayer of bail of the applicants on the ground that two innocent persons have been done to death in most brutal manner and thus having regard to the brutality with which the offence has been committed, the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail.
17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the prosecution case, as is evident from the record, is in terms that on 22.03.2023 deceased persons Amit Shukla and Ramakant were returning to their home and at 3:30 pm. when they arrived at a road situated near Gotiya Village, on the Canal Road, they were intercepted by the accused persons named in the F.I.R. (including applicants) and were assaulted by them with ‘banka, hammer and hockey’. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that apart from the informant, the incident has been witnessed by Pradeep Shukla, Anurag Shukla, Archit Kumar and Shivanshu, who at the relevant point of time were going to Shahabad in connection with the engagement of their grand-daughter and also that they have challenged the accused persons, on which, they (accused persons) had fled away from the scene.
18. The postmortem report of the deceased persons would reveal that deceased Ramakant has sustained 6 injuries of the nature of ‘lacerated wound, stab wounds and abrasions’ on different parts of his body and his death is shown to have been caused due to ‘coma’ as a result of ‘antemortem head injuries’. Similarly the postmortem report of injured-deceased Amit Shukla would reveal that he has sustained as many as 7 injuries of the nature of incised wounds and abrasions on different parts of his body and his cause of death has been ascertained as ‘coma’ due to ‘antemortem head injuries’. The other injured Santosh Kumar Singh is also shown to have sustained injuries. There is no doubt that the injured Santosh Kumar Singh has not taken the name of the applicants but the case pertaining to double murder may not only be decided and perceived only on the basis of the statement of a single witness even if he is an injured. The incident might have occurred in a way that there may not be any opportunity for the injured person to have seen all the accused persons and keeping in view the manner in which the offence has been committed and two persons have been done to death, the preference of the injured Santosh Kumar Singh would have been to save his life instead of witnessing the incident as he may not have the time to witness the same. Witnesses of heinous crimes react in different ways and no straight jacket formula case be applied in these cases and every case has to be seen in the background of its specific facts and circumstances.
19. It is also evident that apart from above injured Santosh Kumar Singh many other witnesses have been mentioned in the F.I.R. namely Pradeep Shukla, Anurag Shukla, Archit Kumar and Shivanshu and they in one voice have taken the name of the applicants as the assailants and their evidence may not be lightly brushed aside. Some of the accused persons have been arrested just after the incident and on their pointing out, weapons of assault have been recovered includings crew driver (pechkash) and thus there appears no discrepancy in the oral version of the incident vis-a-vis medical evidence.
20. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of eye witnesses and also keeping in view the fact that it is a case, where two innocent persons are stated to have been done to death by the concerted efforts of the accused persons, I do not find any good ground, on the basis of which the applicants may be released on bail. In result, the bail applications of the applicants-Virendra Singh @ Bade Singh, Purushottam and Raghav Singh are hereby rejected.
21. This Court vide order dated 26.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11147 of 2023 with regard to plea of bail of co-accused Jitendra Singh Alias Badakkey has directed the trial court to conclude the trial with utmost expedition. Thus, the trial court would make all out efforts to conclude the trial as early as possible without granting soft adjournments to the either party.
22. Let a copy of this order be immediately sent to the trial Court through the Sessions Judge concerned for strict compliance.
23. Observations made herein-above by this Court are only for the purpose of disposal of these bail applications and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.”
4. The present applicant is in jail since 27.03.2023 in Case Crime No.0123 of 2023 under Sections 341, 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506 and 120-B IPC, Police Station- Majhila, District- Hardoi.
5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the bail orders, whereby the co-accused Virendra Singh @ Bade Singh, Saurabh Kumar @ Sajjan, Kallu Singh, Suraj Singh, Neeraj Singh and Ranveer Pratap Singh @ Raja Babu have been granted bail vide orders dated 21.02.2025, 05.03.2025, 18.06.2025, 13.06.2025 & 18.06.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.1641/2025, 2000/2025, 5475/2025, 5371/2025 & 5474/2025 mainly on the ground that the other co-accused persons have been granted bail and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that out of total 12 accused persons against whom the chargesheet has been filed, six accused persons have been granted bail and role of the present applicant is similar to those co-accused persons, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail on the basis of principles of pairity. Sri Mishra has stated that the present applicant is having criminal history of one case, which has been explained.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered. Besides, he has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, all fact/ relevant witnesses have been examined, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. He has further submitted that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. He undertakes that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.
7. Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail application with vehemence saying that the bail of the co-accused Virendra Singh @ Bade Singh was granted by this Court vide order dated 21.02.2025 for the reasons that despite the specific direction being issued by this Court rejecting the first bail application of that accused person to conclude the trial within one year, the trial could not be concluded within time so stipulated. However, after the aforesaid order having been passed, the trial court expedited the proceedings and except the formal witness, all relevant/fact witnesses have been examined. Therefore, Sri Shukla has further submitted that this is a case of double murder and trial court is trying its level best to conclude the trial with expedition inasmuch as the prosecution is cooperating in the trial but the defence is filing application so far as to delay the trial.
8. Learned AGA has also opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that this is a case of double murder and during the course of investigation culpability of the present applicant has been found, so if, he enlarged on bail, he may influence the trial.
9. On being asked from learned counsel for the opposite parties as to whether all relevant/fact witness have been examined, learned counsel for the opposite parties have stated that those witnesses have been examined and the evidence of formal witnesses is being recorded.
10. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that despite the specific direction being issued by this Court while rejecting the first bail application on 03.06.2024 to conclude the trial within a period of one year, more than one year’s period has passed, the trial has not been concluded till date; all fact/ relevant witnesses have been examined and still some prosecution witnesses are to be examined, thereafter the defence witnesses would be examined, therefore, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra), K.A. Najeeb (supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), considering the period of incarceration of the present applicant and considering the undertaking that appliant shall co-operate in the trial proceedings, shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.
11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
12. Let applicant- (Purushottam) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer to cooperate in the investigation and shall further remain present to cooperate in the investigation as and when the Investigating Team calls him to appear and if the charge-sheet is filed against him he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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 him in accordance with law. The present applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
13. Before parting with, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial invoking the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C./346 B.N.S.S. without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, fixing short date, if possible, on day to day basis and if any of the parties does not cooperate in the trial court proceedings properly, any appropriate coercive steps may be taken by the trial court strictly in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 15.7.2025
Reena/-
(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)
[ad_1]
Source link