Udaybhan Singh @ Uddey … 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) This is an application for enlargement on bail preferred by the applicant/ appellant- Udaybhan Singh @ 2 CRLA No. 2947 of 2024 Uddey 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 for 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 rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 I.P.C. apart from lesser sentences for the offences punishable under Sections 504 & 506 I.P.C., out of which he has remained in jail for one year. Secondly, he was on bail during trial. Though, it is said that appellant-applicant has criminal history of 26 criminal cases including the case at hand, some have been explained in para no.14 of the rejoinder affidavit. All the offences are minor ones. He submitted that out of 26 criminal cases, in sixteen cases, either he has been acquitted or the allegations under the sections pertaining to heinous offences such as Section 307 I.P.C. have been dropped. Learned counsel for the applicant also attempted to argue on merits of the findings recorded by 3 CRLA No. 2947 of 2024 learned trial court and contented that they are perverse and contrary to the records. It was also his case that out of these 26 cases including the case at hand, two cases bearing Case Crime No.483 of 2010 and Case Crime No.591 of 2010 relate to the same incident involving an alleged offence under the Arms Act and the Gangsters Act. (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 9 criminal offences, details of which have been mentioned in Annexure No. C.A.1 to the counter affidavit filed by the informant's counsel as also mentioned in the D.C.R.B. report contained in Annexure C.A.-2 of objections filed by learned A.G.A. All these 9 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 other crimes 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 4 CRLA No. 2947 of 2024 injured witnesses and apart from the fact that the appellant- applicant has criminal history of 26 cases, out of which, 9 offences have been committed while on bail, the appellant- applicant including other co-accused are criminal minded persons who had created a reign of terror in the area. The main role of firing has been assigned to the appellant- applicant. There are four bullet injuries on the body of son of the informant and one on the informant, both of whom have supported the prosecution case. The applicant is a history sheeter bearing History Sheet No.47-A at P.S. Gauriganj, District-Amethi, that is, the very police station in the jurisdiction of which the crime at hand was committed. Therefore, enlarging such appellant on bail could be fraught with serious consequences. (5) It was also his submission that an appeal for enhancement of sentence has been filed by the State just as revision has been filed by his client for similar enhancement of sentence as the minimum sentence under Section 307 I.P.C. has been imposed without giving any reasons whereas the maximum sentence is life imprisonment which in fact should have been imposed. For all these reasons, he submitted that the appellant-applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. (6) Learned A.G.A. also opposed the bail application on the same grounds on which the informant has opposed it. He emphasized upon criminal history of the appellant and the fact that other nine offences have been committed while on bail in this case which leaves the possibility of repeat offence not only 5 CRLA No. 2947 of 2024 against the public at large but also against the informant and injured witnesses of this case. (7) In response, Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-applicant submitted that criminal history has been explained in para no.14 of the rejoinder affidavit. Chargesheets have been filed only for minor offences. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648 'Prabhakar Tewari vs. 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 of ten years, out of which, he has remained incarcerated for one year. He has also invited our attention to internal page 15 of the judgment and attempted to show perversity in the findings of the trial court's judgment. (8) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, considering the nature and gravity of the offence which is said to have been committed inside the house of the informant, as the main role of firing upon the injured has been assigned to the appellant-Uday Bhan Singh, the fact that there are two injured witnesses, the injury report reveals four bullet injuries on the body of the son who fell in the lap of his father on being hit, and some of the injuries are on vital parts i.e. on right side of his chest and just above the left nipple, informant himself has sustained bullet injuries, the doctor has testified in support of the injury report and even after taking into consideration that in several of the 26 criminal cases the appellant has either been acquitted or offences alleged under the henious offences such as Section 307 6 CRLA No. 2947 of 2024 I.P.C. have been dropped, one cannot loose sight of the fact that in many cases chargesheets have been filed and in many of these cases the offences are alleged to have been committed by the appellant-applicant while he was on bail in the case at hand, meaning thereby, he misused the liberty of bail and as the appellant does not deny the fact that he has a History Sheet No.47-A in his name at P.S. Gauriganj, District-Amethi, therefore, looking into totality of the facts & circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. (9) Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected. (Order on memo of appeal) (10) Office is directed to prepare the paperbook. (11) List this appeal after three months for hearing. (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) This is an application for enlargement on bail preferred by the applicant/ appellant- Udaybhan Singh @ 2 CRLA No. 2947 of 2024 Uddey 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 for 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 rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 I.P.C. apart from lesser sentences for the offences punishable under Sections 504 & 506 I.P.C., out of which he has remained in jail for one year. Secondly, he was on bail during trial. Though, it is said that appellant-applicant has criminal history of 26 criminal cases including the case at hand, some have been explained in para no.14 of the rejoinder affidavit. All the offences are minor ones. He submitted that out of 26 criminal cases, in sixteen cases, either he has been acquitted or the allegations under the sections pertaining to heinous offences such as Section 307 I.P.C. have been dropped. Learned counsel for the applicant also attempted to argue on merits of the findings recorded by 3 CRLA No. 2947 of 2024 learned trial court and contented that they are perverse and contrary to the records. It was also his case that out of these 26 cases including the case at hand, two cases bearing Case Crime No.483 of 2010 and Case Crime No.591 of 2010 relate to the same incident involving an alleged offence under the Arms Act and the Gangsters Act. (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 9 criminal offences, details of which have been mentioned in Annexure No. C.A.1 to the counter affidavit filed by the informant's counsel as also mentioned in the D.C.R.B. report contained in Annexure C.A.-2 of objections filed by learned A.G.A. All these 9 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 other crimes 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 4 CRLA No. 2947 of 2024 injured witnesses and apart from the fact that the appellant- applicant has criminal history of 26 cases, out of which, 9 offences have been committed while on bail, the appellant- applicant including other co-accused are criminal minded persons who had created a reign of terror in the area. The main role of firing has been assigned to the appellant- applicant. There are four bullet injuries on the body of son of the informant and one on the informant, both of whom have supported the prosecution case. The applicant is a history sheeter bearing History Sheet No.47-A at P.S. Gauriganj, District-Amethi, that is, the very police station in the jurisdiction of which the crime at hand was committed. Therefore, enlarging such appellant on bail could be fraught with serious consequences. (5) It was also his submission that an appeal for enhancement of sentence has been filed by the State just as revision has been filed by his client for similar enhancement of sentence as the minimum sentence under Section 307 I.P.C. has been imposed without giving any reasons whereas the maximum sentence is life imprisonment which in fact should have been imposed. For all these reasons, he submitted that the appellant-applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. (6) Learned A.G.A. also opposed the bail application on the same grounds on which the informant has opposed it. He emphasized upon criminal history of the appellant and the fact that other nine offences have been committed while on bail in this case which leaves the possibility of repeat offence not only 5 CRLA No. 2947 of 2024 against the public at large but also against the informant and injured witnesses of this case. (7) In response, Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-applicant submitted that criminal history has been explained in para no.14 of the rejoinder affidavit. Chargesheets have been filed only for minor offences. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648 'Prabhakar Tewari vs. 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 of ten years, out of which, he has remained incarcerated for one year. He has also invited our attention to internal page 15 of the judgment and attempted to show perversity in the findings of the trial court's judgment. (8) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, considering the nature and gravity of the offence which is said to have been committed inside the house of the informant, as the main role of firing upon the injured has been assigned to the appellant-Uday Bhan Singh, the fact that there are two injured witnesses, the injury report reveals four bullet injuries on the body of the son who fell in the lap of his father on being hit, and some of the injuries are on vital parts i.e. on right side of his chest and just above the left nipple, informant himself has sustained bullet injuries, the doctor has testified in support of the injury report and even after taking into consideration that in several of the 26 criminal cases the appellant has either been acquitted or offences alleged under the henious offences such as Section 307 6 CRLA No. 2947 of 2024 I.P.C. have been dropped, one cannot loose sight of the fact that in many cases chargesheets have been filed and in many of these cases the offences are alleged to have been committed by the appellant-applicant while he was on bail in the case at hand, meaning thereby, he misused the liberty of bail and as the appellant does not deny the fact that he has a History Sheet No.47-A in his name at P.S. Gauriganj, District-Amethi, therefore, looking into totality of the facts & circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. (9) Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected. (Order on memo of appeal) (10) Office is directed to prepare the paperbook. (11) List this appeal after three months for hearing. (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :-04.09.2025 Shanu/-