High Court

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has led this Court through the observations made by the trial court at internal page 108 of the judgment and order impugned, wherein testimony of P.W.- 14, Vinod Singh has been discussed. Vinod Singh had stated that Satyam Patel was introduced by one property dealer by the name of Rakesh Gupta to him for the purpose of taking a house on rent. Vinod Singh used to look after the house of Tarakeshwar Mishra and he gave the house on rent to Satyam Patel. Satyam Patel introduced one boy by the name of Ajay Patel in October, 2016 saying that he was related to him and he was working in Vodafone company and was living on rent in another house. P.W.-14, Vinod Singh is alleged to have identified Satyam Patel from the CCTV footage, which was taken from the shop of the deceased at the time when he was shot down by the assailants. It was mentioned by Vinod Singh that Satyam Patel lived in the house of Tarakeshwar Mishra as tenant for four months and thereafter applicant-Ajay Patel lived in the said house of Tarakeshwar Mishra for another four months as tenant. He met Ajay Patel atleast thrice during this period of four months of stay. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that as is evident from the testimony of P.W.-14, Vinod Singh, he had only been shown the CCTV footage taken from the shop of the deceased, which shows that two persons riding a black motorcycle stopped near the shop of the deceased and then one of the assailants wearing a leather jacket and holding a pistol in his hand, coming forward with the intent to shoot someone.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has referred to internal page 121 of the judgment impugned, where the trial court has discussed the testimony of P.W.-50, Harjeet Singh Sachan and the photographs that were shown, were admittedly too blurred. It has been stated that Akeel Ansari, the main conspirator, Aman Singh, Ajay Patel, Faisal, Babu Khan and Rohit Mishra were not found to be talking to each other on phone on the day when the incident of shooting down Shrawan Sahu i.e. 01.02.2017. Learned counsel for the applicant has also referred to internal page 128 of the judgement impugned, where while discussing the evidence/testimony, the trial court had observed that conspiracy between Akeel Ansari, Satyam Patel, Aman Singh, Faisal, Vivek Verma, Babu Khan and Rohit Mishra stood proved. There is no mention of applicant-Ajay Patel in such observations made in paragraph-123 of the judgement impugned.

5. Similarly, internal page 131 of the judgement also refers to the finding of the trial court and the observations made regarding Black Pulsar motorcycle being identified from the CCTV footage. Mention has only been made of Akeel Ansari, Satyam Patel, Aman Singh, Faisal, Vivek Verma, Babu Khanr and Rohit Mishra conspiring to commit the offence. There is no mention of the name of the applicant-Ajay Patel.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, on the other hand, has pointed out paragraphs 123, 124 and 125 of the judgement to indicate that Satyam Patel was actively involved and he was identified as a shooter wearing the leather jacket, who had got down from the Black Pulsar motorcycle and was holding a pistol intending to shoot Shrawan Sahu. It has been argued that Satyam Patel is cousin of the applicant-Ajay Patel. Initially, Satyam Patel was living in the house of Tarakeshwar Mishra, which was later taken on rent by Ajay Patel, his cousin. At the time of search having been carried out in the house of Ajay Patel, the ID proof and papers relating to criminal cases of Akeel Ansari were found in his house and also the leather jacket, which was worn by Satyam Patel at the time of shooting down of Shrawan Sahu, which photograph was captured from the CCTV footage of the shop of Shrawan Sahu, was also recovered from his possession.

7. Counsel for the respondent has pointed out the testimony of P.W.-14, Vinod Singh with regard to the close connection between the applicant-Ajay Patel and Satyam Patel, his cousin and of P.W.-20 Chand Babu. Chand Babu had stated that Satyam Patel was in jail and at the behest of Akeel Ansari, Chand Babu along with his brother-in-law had acted as sureties and Satyam Patel was got bailed out by Akeel Ansari and Satyam Patel was eventually responsible for shooting down the deceased-Shrawan Sahu. Reference has been repeatedly made to the leather jacket worn by Satyam Patel at the time of committing the crime, which leather jacket was found in possession of applicant-Ajay Patel. Reference has also been made of statement of co-accused Rohit Mishra under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., who stated that all of the accused persons had met in the house of Ajay Patel and hatched the conspiracy to shoot down the deceased, Shrawan Sahu. Counsel for the respondent has also pointed out the testimony of P.W.-44, Vikas Bajpai, who was engaged initially in some hotel and later on by Satyam Patel to do cooking for him in his house. Ajay Patel at that time used to live in a separate house and Vikas Bajpai used to go and cook food for Ajay Patel sometimes on being asked to do so.

8. Counsel for the applicant, in rejoinder, has submitted that all the arguments raised by the counsel for the respondent only point out the closeness between applicant-Ajay Patel with his maternal cousin Satyam Patel, the shooter identified from the CCTV footage taken from the shop of Shrawan Sahu. It is quite probable that ID proof of the shooter or that of Akeel Ansari, the main conspirator, may have been given to the applicant- Ajay Patel as he was working in Vodafone company a service provider for the purpose of procuring a SIM.

9. It has also been pointed out that it is quite probable that the leather jacket which has been identified as having been worn by Satyam Patel at the time of shooting down the deceased, Shrawan Sahu, may be in the possession of his cousin as young boys, who were closely related, often exchange their clothes. Vikas Bajpai indeed may have cooked food for Satyam Patel and also for the applicant-Ajay Patel, both of them being cousins, living close to each other. Similarly, Vinod Kumar Singh, P.W.-14 who looked after the house of Tarakeshwar Mishra has only stated that Satyam Patel had introduced Ajay Patel as his relative for the purpose of giving the house of Tarakeshwar Mishra on rent. The actual hatching of conspiracy and meeting of minds to carry out the shooting down of the deceased Shrawan Sahu has not been made out from any of the arguments raised by the counsel for the respondent. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant-Ajay Patel has no criminal history and he was also on bail during trial and has not misused the liberty granted to him.

10. Having gone through the various paragraphs of the judgement and order impugned as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant and also by the counsel for the respondent, we are, prima facie, of the opinion that only closeness of the appellant Ajay Patel with Satyam Patel could be pointed out from the testimony of the various prosecution witnesses. Ajay Patel being actually involved in the conspiracy for killing Shrawan Sahu could not be made out from the paragraphs mentioned as aforesaid by the counsel for the parties. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail during pendency of this appeal.

11. Let applicant-Ajay Patel, involved in aforesaid session trial, 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 subject to following conditions:- (i) Realisation of half of the fine imposed by the trial court shall remain stayed. The remaining half of the fine shall be deposited with the trial court by the appellant/applicant within three months from his actual release from prison, if the same has not been earlier deposited. (ii) The appellant/applicant shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking any unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The appellant/applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

13. The trial court shall transmit the bail bonds submitted by the appellant/applicant to this Court forthwith. (Order on Appeal)

14. Office is directed to prepare the paper-book.

15. List this appeal in the month of July, 2025 for hearing. . (Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Sangeeta Chandra, J.) Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Rao/-

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has led this Court through the observations made by the trial court at internal page 108 of the judgment and order impugned, wherein testimony of P.W.- 14, Vinod Singh has been discussed. Vinod Singh had stated that Satyam Patel was introduced by one property dealer by the name of Rakesh Gupta to him for the purpose of taking a house on rent. Vinod Singh used to look after the house of Tarakeshwar Mishra and he gave the house on rent to Satyam Patel. Satyam Patel introduced one boy by the name of Ajay Patel in October, 2016 saying that he was related to him and he was working in Vodafone company and was living on rent in another house. P.W.-14, Vinod Singh is alleged to have identified Satyam Patel from the CCTV footage, which was taken from the shop of the deceased at the time when he was shot down by the assailants. It was mentioned by Vinod Singh that Satyam Patel lived in the house of Tarakeshwar Mishra as tenant for four months and thereafter applicant-Ajay Patel lived in the said house of Tarakeshwar Mishra for another four months as tenant. He met Ajay Patel atleast thrice during this period of four months of stay. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that as is evident from the testimony of P.W.-14, Vinod Singh, he had only been shown the CCTV footage taken from the shop of the deceased, which shows that two persons riding a black motorcycle stopped near the shop of the deceased and then one of the assailants wearing a leather jacket and holding a pistol in his hand, coming forward with the intent to shoot someone.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has referred to internal page 121 of the judgment impugned, where the trial court has discussed the testimony of P.W.-50, Harjeet Singh Sachan and the photographs that were shown, were admittedly too blurred. It has been stated that Akeel Ansari, the main conspirator, Aman Singh, Ajay Patel, Faisal, Babu Khan and Rohit Mishra were not found to be talking to each other on phone on the day when the incident of shooting down Shrawan Sahu i.e. 01.02.2017. Learned counsel for the applicant has also referred to internal page 128 of the judgement impugned, where while discussing the evidence/testimony, the trial court had observed that conspiracy between Akeel Ansari, Satyam Patel, Aman Singh, Faisal, Vivek Verma, Babu Khan and Rohit Mishra stood proved. There is no mention of applicant-Ajay Patel in such observations made in paragraph-123 of the judgement impugned.

5. Similarly, internal page 131 of the judgement also refers to the finding of the trial court and the observations made regarding Black Pulsar motorcycle being identified from the CCTV footage. Mention has only been made of Akeel Ansari, Satyam Patel, Aman Singh, Faisal, Vivek Verma, Babu Khanr and Rohit Mishra conspiring to commit the offence. There is no mention of the name of the applicant-Ajay Patel.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, on the other hand, has pointed out paragraphs 123, 124 and 125 of the judgement to indicate that Satyam Patel was actively involved and he was identified as a shooter wearing the leather jacket, who had got down from the Black Pulsar motorcycle and was holding a pistol intending to shoot Shrawan Sahu. It has been argued that Satyam Patel is cousin of the applicant-Ajay Patel. Initially, Satyam Patel was living in the house of Tarakeshwar Mishra, which was later taken on rent by Ajay Patel, his cousin. At the time of search having been carried out in the house of Ajay Patel, the ID proof and papers relating to criminal cases of Akeel Ansari were found in his house and also the leather jacket, which was worn by Satyam Patel at the time of shooting down of Shrawan Sahu, which photograph was captured from the CCTV footage of the shop of Shrawan Sahu, was also recovered from his possession.

7. Counsel for the respondent has pointed out the testimony of P.W.-14, Vinod Singh with regard to the close connection between the applicant-Ajay Patel and Satyam Patel, his cousin and of P.W.-20 Chand Babu. Chand Babu had stated that Satyam Patel was in jail and at the behest of Akeel Ansari, Chand Babu along with his brother-in-law had acted as sureties and Satyam Patel was got bailed out by Akeel Ansari and Satyam Patel was eventually responsible for shooting down the deceased-Shrawan Sahu. Reference has been repeatedly made to the leather jacket worn by Satyam Patel at the time of committing the crime, which leather jacket was found in possession of applicant-Ajay Patel. Reference has also been made of statement of co-accused Rohit Mishra under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., who stated that all of the accused persons had met in the house of Ajay Patel and hatched the conspiracy to shoot down the deceased, Shrawan Sahu. Counsel for the respondent has also pointed out the testimony of P.W.-44, Vikas Bajpai, who was engaged initially in some hotel and later on by Satyam Patel to do cooking for him in his house. Ajay Patel at that time used to live in a separate house and Vikas Bajpai used to go and cook food for Ajay Patel sometimes on being asked to do so.

8. Counsel for the applicant, in rejoinder, has submitted that all the arguments raised by the counsel for the respondent only point out the closeness between applicant-Ajay Patel with his maternal cousin Satyam Patel, the shooter identified from the CCTV footage taken from the shop of Shrawan Sahu. It is quite probable that ID proof of the shooter or that of Akeel Ansari, the main conspirator, may have been given to the applicant- Ajay Patel as he was working in Vodafone company a service provider for the purpose of procuring a SIM.

9. It has also been pointed out that it is quite probable that the leather jacket which has been identified as having been worn by Satyam Patel at the time of shooting down the deceased, Shrawan Sahu, may be in the possession of his cousin as young boys, who were closely related, often exchange their clothes. Vikas Bajpai indeed may have cooked food for Satyam Patel and also for the applicant-Ajay Patel, both of them being cousins, living close to each other. Similarly, Vinod Kumar Singh, P.W.-14 who looked after the house of Tarakeshwar Mishra has only stated that Satyam Patel had introduced Ajay Patel as his relative for the purpose of giving the house of Tarakeshwar Mishra on rent. The actual hatching of conspiracy and meeting of minds to carry out the shooting down of the deceased Shrawan Sahu has not been made out from any of the arguments raised by the counsel for the respondent. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant-Ajay Patel has no criminal history and he was also on bail during trial and has not misused the liberty granted to him.

10. Having gone through the various paragraphs of the judgement and order impugned as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant and also by the counsel for the respondent, we are, prima facie, of the opinion that only closeness of the appellant Ajay Patel with Satyam Patel could be pointed out from the testimony of the various prosecution witnesses. Ajay Patel being actually involved in the conspiracy for killing Shrawan Sahu could not be made out from the paragraphs mentioned as aforesaid by the counsel for the parties. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail during pendency of this appeal.

11. Let applicant-Ajay Patel, involved in aforesaid session trial, 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 subject to following conditions:- (i) Realisation of half of the fine imposed by the trial court shall remain stayed. The remaining half of the fine shall be deposited with the trial court by the appellant/applicant within three months from his actual release from prison, if the same has not been earlier deposited. (ii) The appellant/applicant shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking any unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The appellant/applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

13. The trial court shall transmit the bail bonds submitted by the appellant/applicant to this Court forthwith. (Order on Appeal)

14. Office is directed to prepare the paper-book.

15. List this appeal in the month of July, 2025 for hearing. . (Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Sangeeta Chandra, J.) Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Rao/-