Misc. Application No. 1 of 2024 · High Court

1. We have heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri A.P. Singh for the appellant- applicant, Sangram Singh and Sri Permeshwar Dutt Tewari, learned counsel for the complainant, on the bail application as well as perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been moved by the appellant-applicant, Sangram Singh, who is convict of Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2019 (State Vs. Indresh Pratap Singh @ Pidhai and others), arising out of Case Crime No.37 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120- B/34 IPC, Police Station Jagdishpur, District Amethi, and sentenced for maximum term of life imprisonment pertaining to Sections 302/149 of IPC with fine stipulation, vide judgment and order dated 16.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act, Room No. 4, Sultanpur, praying to release him on bail, during pendency of the instant appeal.

3. Sri H.G.S. Parihar has argued that the appellant- applicant, Sangram Singh has falsely been implicated in the instant case only because of prior enmity. It has been pointed out from Paragraph 9 of the judgment and order impugned that there were allegedly two brothers, namely, Rahul Tiwari and Shubham Tiwari, who were accompanying the deceased-Purushottam at the time when an attack took place on him. In the said attack, it was alleged that all the accused persons, namely, Sangram Singh, Malakhan Singh, Vijay Singh, Deep Raj Singh and Vikram Singh had been involved in shooting the deceased at point blank range which resulted into his instantaneous death.

4. The two alleged eye witnesses, namely, Shubham Tiwari and Rahul Tiwari were made prosecution witnesses and Shubham Tiwari in his testimony before the trial court stated that he alongwith his real brother Rahul Tiwari both were studying in B.Ed. first year at the time when they had given their testimony. At the time of incident, Shubham Tiwari was studying in B.Sc. first year and his brother Rahul Tiwari was in B.Sc. second year. Shubham Tiwari was returning after attending his class at Birendra Nath Singh Smarak College and his brother Rahul Tiwari was returning from coaching where he took classes.

5. There were five gun shot injuries on the person of deceased Purushottam's Tiwari. The said gun shot injuries have been explained by Shubham Tiwari, while admitting during the cross examination, that the gun shot wound in the abdomen was by Deep Raj Singh and Vijay Singh who also hit the deceased on his neck.The accused-Indresh fired a shot on his chest and Deep Raj Singh fired a second shot on right temple of the deceased. He also admitted during the cross-examination that Rahul Tiwari and Shubham Tiwari, who were allegedly accompaning the deceased-Purushottam, did not receive a single injury and their clothes also did not have any blood stains.

6. It has also been admitted during cross-examination by Shubham Tiwari that no weapon of assault was recovered either from Sangram Singh or Malkhan Singh.

7. It was also admitted that neither Malkhan Singh nor Sangram Singh were sitting on the motorcycle of Deep Raj Singh, Vijay Singh or Indresh, who were actually responsible for shooting down the deceased.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-applicant, Sangram Singh has referred to paragraph no. 66 of the judgment and order impugned, wherein the evidence of the prosecution was discussed and clear perversity has been pointed out in such discussion/finding given by the trial court.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has referred to his counter affidavit and he has stated that, as is evident from the inquest report that was prepared soon after the death of the deceased-Purushottam, two wounds were found on the back of the deceased which have not been explained. It has been pointed out by him that the appellant-applicant, Sangram Singh has a criminal history and he also an accused of Gangster Act and he is absconding in such case.

10. The counsel for the complainant has pointed out Annexure-10 at page 24 of the counter affidavit filed by him and stated that the appellant-applicant, Sangram Singh has been absconding and also has pointed out at page 128 of his counter affidavit saying that during trial, Sangram Singh had been refused bail by this Court vide order dated and on 02.11.2022 and against the rejection order he approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12053 of 2022 and the Supreme Court in it's order dated 13th of March, 2023 had affirmed the order passed by the High Court on 02.11.2022.

11. We have gone through the order dated 13th of March, 2023, wherein the Supreme Court had observed that there was no good ground to grant bail and had directed the trial court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably on the day-to-day hearing.

12. Thereafter, the trail was concluded by the judgment and order impugned dated 16.07.2024.

13. The counsel for the complainant has also pointed out that page 138 of the counter affidavit which is an office memo dated 17th of February, 2019, wherein appellant- applicant, Sangram Singh has been shown to have absconded from trial in Case Crime No. 37 of 2019 and an award of Rs.10,000/- has been announced for the information to be given regarding his whereabouts.

14. We have gone through paragraph 14 of the judgment and order impugned which has described the testimony of the medical officer who had conducted the post-mortem, from which it is evident that there were two wounds of exist found on the back of the body of the deceased, namely, injury no. 2 and injury no. 4. There were five other wounds of entry, namely, injury nos. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Such five entry wounds had been explained, as aforesaid, in the testimony of Shubham Tiwari and Rahul Tiwari, the prosecution witnesses, who were allegedly accompanying the deceased on the date when the assault took place.

15. In so far as the criminal history of the appellant- applicant is concerned, the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-applicant has pointed out at page 172 of his bail application, wherein it has been stated that in Case Crime No. 414 of 2010, final report has been submitted by the police. In Case Crime No. 265 of 2011, the applicant has been acquitted by the trial court on

15.07.2023, in Case Crime No. 622 of 2011 under Section 2/3 of Gangsters Act, the appellant-applicant has been granted bail on 25.04.2012 and in Case Crime No. 214 of 2019, under Section 2/3(1) of Gangsters Act, it has been stated that the same cannot be taken into consideration as a criminal history, as it has been lodged by the police at police Station Jagdishpur with an intention to keep the applicant in jail even after grant of bail by the competent court. At present, the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.03.2019, during pendency of the trial in Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2019 and after conviction on 16.07.2024 and he could not have been treated as absconding in the trial in Gangster Act as he has remained in jail since March, 2019 .

16. Having heard the counsel for the parties and having gone through paragraph nos. 9, 14 and 66 of the judgment and order impugned, we find, prima facie, that no specific role has been assigned to the appellant- applicant, Sangram Singh of causing gun shot injury on the deceased-Purushottam, although he may have accompanied the other co-accused, as has been alleged by the counsel for the complainant, and no weapon of assault has been recovered from him.

17. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, sufficient enough to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant.

18. In result, the bail application of the appellant-applicant is allowed.

19. Let the appellant-applicant, Sangram Singh, involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) The fine, as awarded by the trial court, is not stayed. (ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

20. The trial court shall transmit the bail bonds submitted by the appellant-applicant to this Court forthwith. [Order on Appeal] List this case in the next week alongwith connected matters. [Shree Prakash Singh,J. ] [Sangeeta Chandra,J.] Order Date :- 15.4.2025 kkv/

1. We have heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri A.P. Singh for the appellant- applicant, Sangram Singh and Sri Permeshwar Dutt Tewari, learned counsel for the complainant, on the bail application as well as perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been moved by the appellant-applicant, Sangram Singh, who is convict of Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2019 (State Vs. Indresh Pratap Singh @ Pidhai and others), arising out of Case Crime No.37 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120- B/34 IPC, Police Station Jagdishpur, District Amethi, and sentenced for maximum term of life imprisonment pertaining to Sections 302/149 of IPC with fine stipulation, vide judgment and order dated 16.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act, Room No. 4, Sultanpur, praying to release him on bail, during pendency of the instant appeal.

3. Sri H.G.S. Parihar has argued that the appellant- applicant, Sangram Singh has falsely been implicated in the instant case only because of prior enmity. It has been pointed out from Paragraph 9 of the judgment and order impugned that there were allegedly two brothers, namely, Rahul Tiwari and Shubham Tiwari, who were accompanying the deceased-Purushottam at the time when an attack took place on him. In the said attack, it was alleged that all the accused persons, namely, Sangram Singh, Malakhan Singh, Vijay Singh, Deep Raj Singh and Vikram Singh had been involved in shooting the deceased at point blank range which resulted into his instantaneous death.

4. The two alleged eye witnesses, namely, Shubham Tiwari and Rahul Tiwari were made prosecution witnesses and Shubham Tiwari in his testimony before the trial court stated that he alongwith his real brother Rahul Tiwari both were studying in B.Ed. first year at the time when they had given their testimony. At the time of incident, Shubham Tiwari was studying in B.Sc. first year and his brother Rahul Tiwari was in B.Sc. second year. Shubham Tiwari was returning after attending his class at Birendra Nath Singh Smarak College and his brother Rahul Tiwari was returning from coaching where he took classes.

5. There were five gun shot injuries on the person of deceased Purushottam's Tiwari. The said gun shot injuries have been explained by Shubham Tiwari, while admitting during the cross examination, that the gun shot wound in the abdomen was by Deep Raj Singh and Vijay Singh who also hit the deceased on his neck.The accused-Indresh fired a shot on his chest and Deep Raj Singh fired a second shot on right temple of the deceased. He also admitted during the cross-examination that Rahul Tiwari and Shubham Tiwari, who were allegedly accompaning the deceased-Purushottam, did not receive a single injury and their clothes also did not have any blood stains.

6. It has also been admitted during cross-examination by Shubham Tiwari that no weapon of assault was recovered either from Sangram Singh or Malkhan Singh.

7. It was also admitted that neither Malkhan Singh nor Sangram Singh were sitting on the motorcycle of Deep Raj Singh, Vijay Singh or Indresh, who were actually responsible for shooting down the deceased.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-applicant, Sangram Singh has referred to paragraph no. 66 of the judgment and order impugned, wherein the evidence of the prosecution was discussed and clear perversity has been pointed out in such discussion/finding given by the trial court.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has referred to his counter affidavit and he has stated that, as is evident from the inquest report that was prepared soon after the death of the deceased-Purushottam, two wounds were found on the back of the deceased which have not been explained. It has been pointed out by him that the appellant-applicant, Sangram Singh has a criminal history and he also an accused of Gangster Act and he is absconding in such case.

10. The counsel for the complainant has pointed out Annexure-10 at page 24 of the counter affidavit filed by him and stated that the appellant-applicant, Sangram Singh has been absconding and also has pointed out at page 128 of his counter affidavit saying that during trial, Sangram Singh had been refused bail by this Court vide order dated and on 02.11.2022 and against the rejection order he approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12053 of 2022 and the Supreme Court in it's order dated 13th of March, 2023 had affirmed the order passed by the High Court on 02.11.2022.

11. We have gone through the order dated 13th of March, 2023, wherein the Supreme Court had observed that there was no good ground to grant bail and had directed the trial court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably on the day-to-day hearing.

12. Thereafter, the trail was concluded by the judgment and order impugned dated 16.07.2024.

13. The counsel for the complainant has also pointed out that page 138 of the counter affidavit which is an office memo dated 17th of February, 2019, wherein appellant- applicant, Sangram Singh has been shown to have absconded from trial in Case Crime No. 37 of 2019 and an award of Rs.10,000/- has been announced for the information to be given regarding his whereabouts.

14. We have gone through paragraph 14 of the judgment and order impugned which has described the testimony of the medical officer who had conducted the post-mortem, from which it is evident that there were two wounds of exist found on the back of the body of the deceased, namely, injury no. 2 and injury no. 4. There were five other wounds of entry, namely, injury nos. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Such five entry wounds had been explained, as aforesaid, in the testimony of Shubham Tiwari and Rahul Tiwari, the prosecution witnesses, who were allegedly accompanying the deceased on the date when the assault took place.

15. In so far as the criminal history of the appellant- applicant is concerned, the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-applicant has pointed out at page 172 of his bail application, wherein it has been stated that in Case Crime No. 414 of 2010, final report has been submitted by the police. In Case Crime No. 265 of 2011, the applicant has been acquitted by the trial court on

15.07.2023, in Case Crime No. 622 of 2011 under Section 2/3 of Gangsters Act, the appellant-applicant has been granted bail on 25.04.2012 and in Case Crime No. 214 of 2019, under Section 2/3(1) of Gangsters Act, it has been stated that the same cannot be taken into consideration as a criminal history, as it has been lodged by the police at police Station Jagdishpur with an intention to keep the applicant in jail even after grant of bail by the competent court. At present, the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.03.2019, during pendency of the trial in Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2019 and after conviction on 16.07.2024 and he could not have been treated as absconding in the trial in Gangster Act as he has remained in jail since March, 2019 .

16. Having heard the counsel for the parties and having gone through paragraph nos. 9, 14 and 66 of the judgment and order impugned, we find, prima facie, that no specific role has been assigned to the appellant- applicant, Sangram Singh of causing gun shot injury on the deceased-Purushottam, although he may have accompanied the other co-accused, as has been alleged by the counsel for the complainant, and no weapon of assault has been recovered from him.

17. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, sufficient enough to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant.

18. In result, the bail application of the appellant-applicant is allowed.

19. Let the appellant-applicant, Sangram Singh, involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) The fine, as awarded by the trial court, is not stayed. (ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

20. The trial court shall transmit the bail bonds submitted by the appellant-applicant to this Court forthwith. [Order on Appeal] List this case in the next week alongwith connected matters. [Shree Prakash Singh,J. ] [Sangeeta Chandra,J.] Order Date :- 15.4.2025 kkv/