High Court

1. We have heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Anil Dubey in Criminal Appeal No.3736 of 2024 and has pressed bail application on behalf of appellant-applicant Anil Dubey.

2. The instant bail application has been moved by the appellant- applicant Anil Dubey, who is convict of Sessions Trial No.600686 of 2012 arsing out of Case Crime No. 108 of 2012 under Section 307 read with Section 34, 504 I.P.C. P.S. Mill Area, District Raebareli. He has been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine stipulation, vide Judgement and order dated 11.10.2024 passed by learned VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raebareli, during the pendency of the instant appeal.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant Anil Dubey that the prosecution story in short is that informant Brijesh Kumar Singh's grandson Akshay Pratap Singh along with his colleague Ayush Singh was going on motorcycle on the National Highway. Near Sarvodaya Nagar Railway crossing, he was waylaid by Mukut Pratap Singh, Vinay Pratap Singh, Anil Dubey, Brijraj Mishra who were on two motorcycles. Mukut Pratap Singh caught hold of Akshay Pratap Singh and brought him down from his motorcycle and fired at him from his pistol and when his grandson tried to run away, he was caught hold of by his three friends Anil Dubey, Vinay Pratap Singh and Brijraj Mishra who have been assigned role of catching hold of injured victim while Mukut Pratap Singh aimed and fired at him in his abdomen. After this incident, all the accused fled away on their motorcycles. Injured Akshay Pratap Singh was taken to the hospital who told his father about the incident, who, in turn, told the informant Brijesh Kumar Singh about the same.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicant that charges were framed under Section 307 read with Section 34 and 504 I.P.C. The trial court without appreciating the evidence given by D.W. 4 and D.W.5 regarding Anil Dubey not being present on the scene of crime, has convicted him under Section 307 I.P.C. with help of Section 34 and has given maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicant that the appellant-applicant has not been assigned any role except that of catching hold of the injured victim which appears to be unlikely as while catching hold the victim, the accused-appellant was at risk of being hit by the bullet being fired by the co-accused.

6. It has also been stated that although in the objections filed by the State respondents, the appellant has been shown having criminal history of 15 cases and all of them have been explained by him in present Misc. Bail Application as well as rejoinder affidavit, he has referred to several orders passed by this Court granting bail to the appellant-applicant. Most of the cases, according to the learned counsel for the appellant- applicant, relate to Sections 307, 504, 506 and 323 I.P.C. as is evident from the bail orders, which have been filed along with the bail application. In all the three cases where the appellant has been implicated under Section 307 I.P.C., no actual injury was caused to any of the victims and in the cases relating to Arms Act and Gangster Act also, the appellant has been granted bail. It has also been submitted that the appellant-applicant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant states that in case this Court is pleased to grant bail, the appellant-applicant shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment and not try to delay the decision of the appeal and comply with all the conditions as may be imposed by this Court while granting bail.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Vikas Vikram Singh has pointed out that the appellant has a long criminal history. Since the trial court has found it appropriate to convict him under Section 34, a meeting of minds can been said to have taken place and the attempt on the life of victim Akshay Pratap Singh was premeditated. It has also been pointed out that appellant-applicant Anil Dubey has taken the plea of alibi and of not being present at the place of incident on 27.3.2012 but the trial court has rejected this plea as untenable.

8. However, it could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that no specific role of shooting the injured victim has been assigned by the informant to the appellant- applicant and maximum sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed by the trial court while finding him guilty.

9. This Court is prima facie of the opinion that the sentence of life imprisonment is excessive in nature in a case where the only role assigned is of exhortation to fire at the victim which also appears to be doubtful in view of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.

11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find it a fit case for grant of bail.

12. In result, the bail application of the appellant is allowed.

13. Let the appellant-applicant Anil Dubey, involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) The amount of 50% fine as awarded by the trial court is stayed and rest of the amount of 50% fine shall be deposited with the trial court by the appellant within one month from his actual release from prison, if the same has not been earlier deposited. (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.

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

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

1. Office is directed to prepare the paper book within three weeks, if already not prepared.

2.List this appeal in the month of August, 2025 for hearing. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Ram Murti

1. We have heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Anil Dubey in Criminal Appeal No.3736 of 2024 and has pressed bail application on behalf of appellant-applicant Anil Dubey.

2. The instant bail application has been moved by the appellant- applicant Anil Dubey, who is convict of Sessions Trial No.600686 of 2012 arsing out of Case Crime No. 108 of 2012 under Section 307 read with Section 34, 504 I.P.C. P.S. Mill Area, District Raebareli. He has been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine stipulation, vide Judgement and order dated 11.10.2024 passed by learned VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raebareli, during the pendency of the instant appeal.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant Anil Dubey that the prosecution story in short is that informant Brijesh Kumar Singh's grandson Akshay Pratap Singh along with his colleague Ayush Singh was going on motorcycle on the National Highway. Near Sarvodaya Nagar Railway crossing, he was waylaid by Mukut Pratap Singh, Vinay Pratap Singh, Anil Dubey, Brijraj Mishra who were on two motorcycles. Mukut Pratap Singh caught hold of Akshay Pratap Singh and brought him down from his motorcycle and fired at him from his pistol and when his grandson tried to run away, he was caught hold of by his three friends Anil Dubey, Vinay Pratap Singh and Brijraj Mishra who have been assigned role of catching hold of injured victim while Mukut Pratap Singh aimed and fired at him in his abdomen. After this incident, all the accused fled away on their motorcycles. Injured Akshay Pratap Singh was taken to the hospital who told his father about the incident, who, in turn, told the informant Brijesh Kumar Singh about the same.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicant that charges were framed under Section 307 read with Section 34 and 504 I.P.C. The trial court without appreciating the evidence given by D.W. 4 and D.W.5 regarding Anil Dubey not being present on the scene of crime, has convicted him under Section 307 I.P.C. with help of Section 34 and has given maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicant that the appellant-applicant has not been assigned any role except that of catching hold of the injured victim which appears to be unlikely as while catching hold the victim, the accused-appellant was at risk of being hit by the bullet being fired by the co-accused.

6. It has also been stated that although in the objections filed by the State respondents, the appellant has been shown having criminal history of 15 cases and all of them have been explained by him in present Misc. Bail Application as well as rejoinder affidavit, he has referred to several orders passed by this Court granting bail to the appellant-applicant. Most of the cases, according to the learned counsel for the appellant- applicant, relate to Sections 307, 504, 506 and 323 I.P.C. as is evident from the bail orders, which have been filed along with the bail application. In all the three cases where the appellant has been implicated under Section 307 I.P.C., no actual injury was caused to any of the victims and in the cases relating to Arms Act and Gangster Act also, the appellant has been granted bail. It has also been submitted that the appellant-applicant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant states that in case this Court is pleased to grant bail, the appellant-applicant shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment and not try to delay the decision of the appeal and comply with all the conditions as may be imposed by this Court while granting bail.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Vikas Vikram Singh has pointed out that the appellant has a long criminal history. Since the trial court has found it appropriate to convict him under Section 34, a meeting of minds can been said to have taken place and the attempt on the life of victim Akshay Pratap Singh was premeditated. It has also been pointed out that appellant-applicant Anil Dubey has taken the plea of alibi and of not being present at the place of incident on 27.3.2012 but the trial court has rejected this plea as untenable.

8. However, it could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that no specific role of shooting the injured victim has been assigned by the informant to the appellant- applicant and maximum sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed by the trial court while finding him guilty.

9. This Court is prima facie of the opinion that the sentence of life imprisonment is excessive in nature in a case where the only role assigned is of exhortation to fire at the victim which also appears to be doubtful in view of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.

11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find it a fit case for grant of bail.

12. In result, the bail application of the appellant is allowed.

13. Let the appellant-applicant Anil Dubey, involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) The amount of 50% fine as awarded by the trial court is stayed and rest of the amount of 50% fine shall be deposited with the trial court by the appellant within one month from his actual release from prison, if the same has not been earlier deposited. (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.

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

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

1. Office is directed to prepare the paper book within three weeks, if already not prepared.

2.List this appeal in the month of August, 2025 for hearing. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Ram Murti