Pooran Singh … v. …
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
Heard Sri Nagendra Mohan, Advocate assisted by Sri Salil Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, Sri Ravish Chndra Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Suhil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Informant. 2 CRLA No.-2872 of 2024 (2) This is an application for enlargement on bail preferred by the applicant/ appellant-Pooran Singh who has been convicted in Sessions Trial No.394 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No.465/2010, under Sections-307, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Gauriganj , District-C.S.M. Nagar by which the appellant/ applicant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 307 I.P.C. to undergo simple imprisonment for ten years along with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment of six months, Under Section 504 I.P.C. to undergo simple imprisonment of six months along with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month further imprisonment and under Section 506 I.P.C. to undergo simple imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further three months imprisonment. He is in jail since
23.08.2024. (3) The contention of learned counsel for the applicant in nutshell was that the applicant has been sentenced to ten years simple imprisonment under Section 307 I.P.C. apart from lesser sentences for the offences punishable under Sections 504 & 506 I.P.C. He is in jail since 23.08.2024. Secondly, he was on bail during trial. Though, it is said that appellant-applicant has criminal history of six criminal cases including the case at hand, some have been explained in para no.2 of the supplementary affidavit, all the offences are minor. Further the role of the appellant-applicant herein is only of exhortation and the main role of firing has been assigned to another co- accused, namely, Udaybhan Singh @ Uddey. Learned counsel 3 CRLA No.-2872 of 2024 for the applicant also attempted to argue on the merits of the findings recorded by learned trial court and contented that they are perverse and contrary to the records. (4) Per contra, Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted that the case at hand was registered on 09.08.2010 bearing Case Crime No.465/2010 and after being released on bail, the appellant-applicant committed as many as five criminal offences, details of which have been mentioned in the counter affidavit and also mentioned in the D.C.R.B. report contained in C.A.-2 of objections of learned A.G.A. All these five offences were committed while on bail, therefore, the appellant-applicant apparently misused the liberty of bail as such one cannot rule out the possibility of similar crime being committed if this Court enlarges the appellant on bail. He also emphasized upon the gravity of the offence committed by the appellant along with the co-accused within the Hata of the injured informant's house. He took us through the narration of the events which took place on 09.08.2010 as contained in the impugned judgment and the F.I.R. There are bullet injuries on two persons i.e. father and son. There are four bullet injuries on the body of son, some of which are on vital parts. He has taken us through the injury report which according to him has been proved by the doctor. The submission is that there are injured witnesses and apart from the fact that the appellant has criminal history of six cases out of which five have been committed after being enlarged on bail, the co-accused has 26 cases and they are criminal minded persons who had created a 4 CRLA No.-2872 of 2024 reign of terror in the area. Therefore, enlarging such an appellant on bail could be fraught with serious consequences. It is also his submission that an appeal for enhancement of sentence has been filed by the State just as a revision has been filed by his client for enhancement of sentence as the minimum sentence under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. has been imposed without giving any reasons whereas the maximum sentence is life imprisonment which in fact should have been imposed. Merely because the role assigned to the appellant-applicant is of exhortation, it does not lessen the crime and this by itself cannot be a ground for enlarging the appellant on bail considering the nature of the offence committed. For all these reasons, he submitted that the appellant-applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. (5) Learned A.G.A. also opposed the bail application on the same grounds on which the informant has opposed it. He emphasised upon the criminal history of the appellant and the fact that other five offences have been committed while on bail in this very case, which leaves the possibility of repeat offence not only against the public at large but also against the informant and injured witness of this case. (6) In response, Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-applicant submitted that criminal history has been explaned in para no.2 of the supplementary affidavit. The serious offences as alleged in the F.I.R./ N.C.R. had been dropped. Chargesheets have been filed only for minor offences. Therefore, in view of decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648 'Prabhakar Tewari vs. 5 CRLA No.-2872 of 2024 State of U.P. & Anr.', mere criminal history itself cannot be a ground for not enlarging the appellant on bail especially as the sentence is only for ten years, out of which, he remained incarcerated for one year. He has also invited our attention to internal page 15 of the judgment and attempted to show the perversity in the findings of the trial court's judgment. (7) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, even though the role of exhortation has been assigned to the appellant-Pooran Singh, considering the manner in which the crime has been committed where as per the prosecution version the appellant-Pooran Singh along with co-accused -Udaybhan Singh entered the 'Hata' of the injured and started abusing them and, on being asked not to do so, the appellant-Pooran Singh exhorted Udaybhan Singh to kill the informant whereupon Udaybhan Singh fired upon him with his pistol which hit him in his thigh, the informant-Anant Bahadur stood up and started going inside the house whereupon, the appellant-Pooran Singh again exhorted Udaybhan Singh to fire and when son of the informant-Anil came out of the house appellant-Pooran Singh is again alleged to have exhorted Udaybhan Singh to kill him whereupon Udaybhan Singh fired four times upon Anil, two of the shots hit him one on the right chest and other on left chest just above the left nipple, there are two injured witnesses who have supported the prosecution case, the appellant is alleged to have committed at least five criminal offences after being enlarged on bail in this case, meaning thereby, he has misused the liberty of bail granted in this case and has a criminal record 6 CRLA No.-2872 of 2024 bearing Case Crime No.1011/2015, Case Crime No.999/2015, Case Crime No.648/2016, Case Crime No.267/2019 and Case Crime No.79/2024 in which chargesheets have been filed, even if, for minor offences but the fact remains that liberty of bail was misused by the appellant-Pooran Singh and one cannot rule out the possibility of similar crimes being committed if enlarged on bail and as the medical evidence has also supported the prosecution case, therefore, looking into the totality and the facts & circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage. (8) Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected at this stage. (Order on memo of appeal) (9) Office is directed to prepare the paperbook. (10) List this appeal after three months. (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :-04.09.2025 Shanu/-
Heard Sri Nagendra Mohan, Advocate assisted by Sri Salil Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, Sri Ravish Chndra Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Suhil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Informant. 2 CRLA No.-2872 of 2024 (2) This is an application for enlargement on bail preferred by the applicant/ appellant-Pooran Singh who has been convicted in Sessions Trial No.394 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No.465/2010, under Sections-307, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Gauriganj , District-C.S.M. Nagar by which the appellant/ applicant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 307 I.P.C. to undergo simple imprisonment for ten years along with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment of six months, Under Section 504 I.P.C. to undergo simple imprisonment of six months along with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month further imprisonment and under Section 506 I.P.C. to undergo simple imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further three months imprisonment. He is in jail since
23.08.2024. (3) The contention of learned counsel for the applicant in nutshell was that the applicant has been sentenced to ten years simple imprisonment under Section 307 I.P.C. apart from lesser sentences for the offences punishable under Sections 504 & 506 I.P.C. He is in jail since 23.08.2024. Secondly, he was on bail during trial. Though, it is said that appellant-applicant has criminal history of six criminal cases including the case at hand, some have been explained in para no.2 of the supplementary affidavit, all the offences are minor. Further the role of the appellant-applicant herein is only of exhortation and the main role of firing has been assigned to another co- accused, namely, Udaybhan Singh @ Uddey. Learned counsel 3 CRLA No.-2872 of 2024 for the applicant also attempted to argue on the merits of the findings recorded by learned trial court and contented that they are perverse and contrary to the records. (4) Per contra, Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted that the case at hand was registered on 09.08.2010 bearing Case Crime No.465/2010 and after being released on bail, the appellant-applicant committed as many as five criminal offences, details of which have been mentioned in the counter affidavit and also mentioned in the D.C.R.B. report contained in C.A.-2 of objections of learned A.G.A. All these five offences were committed while on bail, therefore, the appellant-applicant apparently misused the liberty of bail as such one cannot rule out the possibility of similar crime being committed if this Court enlarges the appellant on bail. He also emphasized upon the gravity of the offence committed by the appellant along with the co-accused within the Hata of the injured informant's house. He took us through the narration of the events which took place on 09.08.2010 as contained in the impugned judgment and the F.I.R. There are bullet injuries on two persons i.e. father and son. There are four bullet injuries on the body of son, some of which are on vital parts. He has taken us through the injury report which according to him has been proved by the doctor. The submission is that there are injured witnesses and apart from the fact that the appellant has criminal history of six cases out of which five have been committed after being enlarged on bail, the co-accused has 26 cases and they are criminal minded persons who had created a 4 CRLA No.-2872 of 2024 reign of terror in the area. Therefore, enlarging such an appellant on bail could be fraught with serious consequences. It is also his submission that an appeal for enhancement of sentence has been filed by the State just as a revision has been filed by his client for enhancement of sentence as the minimum sentence under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. has been imposed without giving any reasons whereas the maximum sentence is life imprisonment which in fact should have been imposed. Merely because the role assigned to the appellant-applicant is of exhortation, it does not lessen the crime and this by itself cannot be a ground for enlarging the appellant on bail considering the nature of the offence committed. For all these reasons, he submitted that the appellant-applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. (5) Learned A.G.A. also opposed the bail application on the same grounds on which the informant has opposed it. He emphasised upon the criminal history of the appellant and the fact that other five offences have been committed while on bail in this very case, which leaves the possibility of repeat offence not only against the public at large but also against the informant and injured witness of this case. (6) In response, Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-applicant submitted that criminal history has been explaned in para no.2 of the supplementary affidavit. The serious offences as alleged in the F.I.R./ N.C.R. had been dropped. Chargesheets have been filed only for minor offences. Therefore, in view of decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648 'Prabhakar Tewari vs. 5 CRLA No.-2872 of 2024 State of U.P. & Anr.', mere criminal history itself cannot be a ground for not enlarging the appellant on bail especially as the sentence is only for ten years, out of which, he remained incarcerated for one year. He has also invited our attention to internal page 15 of the judgment and attempted to show the perversity in the findings of the trial court's judgment. (7) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, even though the role of exhortation has been assigned to the appellant-Pooran Singh, considering the manner in which the crime has been committed where as per the prosecution version the appellant-Pooran Singh along with co-accused -Udaybhan Singh entered the 'Hata' of the injured and started abusing them and, on being asked not to do so, the appellant-Pooran Singh exhorted Udaybhan Singh to kill the informant whereupon Udaybhan Singh fired upon him with his pistol which hit him in his thigh, the informant-Anant Bahadur stood up and started going inside the house whereupon, the appellant-Pooran Singh again exhorted Udaybhan Singh to fire and when son of the informant-Anil came out of the house appellant-Pooran Singh is again alleged to have exhorted Udaybhan Singh to kill him whereupon Udaybhan Singh fired four times upon Anil, two of the shots hit him one on the right chest and other on left chest just above the left nipple, there are two injured witnesses who have supported the prosecution case, the appellant is alleged to have committed at least five criminal offences after being enlarged on bail in this case, meaning thereby, he has misused the liberty of bail granted in this case and has a criminal record 6 CRLA No.-2872 of 2024 bearing Case Crime No.1011/2015, Case Crime No.999/2015, Case Crime No.648/2016, Case Crime No.267/2019 and Case Crime No.79/2024 in which chargesheets have been filed, even if, for minor offences but the fact remains that liberty of bail was misused by the appellant-Pooran Singh and one cannot rule out the possibility of similar crimes being committed if enlarged on bail and as the medical evidence has also supported the prosecution case, therefore, looking into the totality and the facts & circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage. (8) Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected at this stage. (Order on memo of appeal) (9) Office is directed to prepare the paperbook. (10) List this appeal after three months. (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :-04.09.2025 Shanu/-