High Court

1. Heard Sri Neeraj Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants (in Criminal Appeal Nos.4229 of 2024 and 4019 of 2024); Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State.

2. None appears on behalf of appellant-Saurav (in Criminal Appeal Nos.4479 of 2024).

3. The above appeals are clubbed. All the appeals arise from the judgement and order of conviction dated 07.03.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Muzaffar Nagar in Sessions Trial No.1203 of 2019, (State versus Ranveer Singh) as well as Sessions Trial No.1178 of 2020, (State versus Om Singh), both arising out of Case Crime No.446 of 2013, under Sections 302 & 120-B IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Mizaffar Nagar. Maximum sentence awarded to all the accused-appellants is life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- each along-with default clause.

4. In these applications, the appellants seek suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants states that the case of the present appellants is different from that of co-accused Saurav. His bail application has not been pressed, at present.

6. Accordingly, the bail applications of Ranveer Singh and Om Singh alone have been taken up for consideration, at present.

7. Submission is, ocular and other evidence have emerged only against the persons directly involved in the occurrence, namely, Saurav, Ajay and Sagar. Ajay and Sagar have been declared juvenile. Trial against those two accused persons has been thus separated. Insofar as Saurav is concerned, the case of present appellants is described to be completely different inasmuch as admittedly the prosecution has not assigned any role of shooting or causing any injury to the deceased to either Ranveer Singh or Om Singh. Even their presence at the time and place of occurrence, is not claimed by the prosecution.

8. As to criminal conspiracy, it has been submitted, there is absolutely no credible evidence to include any criminal agreement reached between these appellants and the shooters who caused the occurrence. Merely because those persons may be related to the present appellants or merely because certain allegations of criminal intimidation may have been made against the present appellants that too belatedly, may not lead to any conclusion or finding of fact that criminal conspiracy had been hatched by the appellants to cause the occurrence. Here, it has been indicated that the statement of first informant PW-1 was recorded twelve days after the occurrence whereas that of PW-4 was recorded eight months after the occurrence. In such circumstances, the appellants are described to have remained confined for about four years.

9. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant would submit, the present appellants are named for having hatched criminal conspiracy to cause the occurrence. Further, not only they are named in the FIR, they are also named in another / subsequent case lodged wherein the first informant of the present case has been murdered.

10. On query made, it is again submitted that even in that case the appellants are named only by way of criminal conspiracy.

11. With respect to the above case and other criminal history, it has been pointed out that there is criminal history of three cases against the appellant-Om Singh. In one he has been acquitted, in the other his name has been expunged from the charge sheet and in the third involving criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC referred to by learned counsel for the informant, he has been enlarged on bail. Insofar as the appellant-Ranveer Singh is concerned criminal history of four cases exists. In one he has been acquitted and in other three he is on bail.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the case of the main shooters including Saurav may stand on a completely different footing. Inasmuch as ocular and other evidence is concerned, the present appellants-Ranveer Singh and Om Singh besides blood relation with the main accused and allegation of part criminal intimidation alleged, at present it requires serious consideration if material exists to implicate the present appellants in criminal conspiracy involving any criminal agreement, to cause the occurrence.

13. Matter requires consideration. Without making any further observation as may affect the final merit of the appeals and leaving all arguments open to the advance at that stage, we also note that at present there is no hope early hearing of present appeals. One of the appellant-Om Singh has taken ill. He has been referred to AIIMS, New Delhi.

14. Accordingly, the bail applications of those two accused are allowed.

15. Let the appellants -Ranveer Singh and Om Singh convicted and sentenced in the above mentioned sessions trials be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. On acceptance of bail bond and personal bond, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record.

16. Realization of 50% fine shall remain stayed during the pendency of present appeals. Remaining 50% of fine shall be deposited by the appellants within a month of his release. Order on Appeal

17. Office is directed to prepare paper book.

18. List in due course for final hearing. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 I.A.Siddiqui (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Neeraj Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants (in Criminal Appeal Nos.4229 of 2024 and 4019 of 2024); Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State.

2. None appears on behalf of appellant-Saurav (in Criminal Appeal Nos.4479 of 2024).

3. The above appeals are clubbed. All the appeals arise from the judgement and order of conviction dated 07.03.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Muzaffar Nagar in Sessions Trial No.1203 of 2019, (State versus Ranveer Singh) as well as Sessions Trial No.1178 of 2020, (State versus Om Singh), both arising out of Case Crime No.446 of 2013, under Sections 302 & 120-B IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Mizaffar Nagar. Maximum sentence awarded to all the accused-appellants is life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- each along-with default clause.

4. In these applications, the appellants seek suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants states that the case of the present appellants is different from that of co-accused Saurav. His bail application has not been pressed, at present.

6. Accordingly, the bail applications of Ranveer Singh and Om Singh alone have been taken up for consideration, at present.

7. Submission is, ocular and other evidence have emerged only against the persons directly involved in the occurrence, namely, Saurav, Ajay and Sagar. Ajay and Sagar have been declared juvenile. Trial against those two accused persons has been thus separated. Insofar as Saurav is concerned, the case of present appellants is described to be completely different inasmuch as admittedly the prosecution has not assigned any role of shooting or causing any injury to the deceased to either Ranveer Singh or Om Singh. Even their presence at the time and place of occurrence, is not claimed by the prosecution.

8. As to criminal conspiracy, it has been submitted, there is absolutely no credible evidence to include any criminal agreement reached between these appellants and the shooters who caused the occurrence. Merely because those persons may be related to the present appellants or merely because certain allegations of criminal intimidation may have been made against the present appellants that too belatedly, may not lead to any conclusion or finding of fact that criminal conspiracy had been hatched by the appellants to cause the occurrence. Here, it has been indicated that the statement of first informant PW-1 was recorded twelve days after the occurrence whereas that of PW-4 was recorded eight months after the occurrence. In such circumstances, the appellants are described to have remained confined for about four years.

9. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant would submit, the present appellants are named for having hatched criminal conspiracy to cause the occurrence. Further, not only they are named in the FIR, they are also named in another / subsequent case lodged wherein the first informant of the present case has been murdered.

10. On query made, it is again submitted that even in that case the appellants are named only by way of criminal conspiracy.

11. With respect to the above case and other criminal history, it has been pointed out that there is criminal history of three cases against the appellant-Om Singh. In one he has been acquitted, in the other his name has been expunged from the charge sheet and in the third involving criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC referred to by learned counsel for the informant, he has been enlarged on bail. Insofar as the appellant-Ranveer Singh is concerned criminal history of four cases exists. In one he has been acquitted and in other three he is on bail.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the case of the main shooters including Saurav may stand on a completely different footing. Inasmuch as ocular and other evidence is concerned, the present appellants-Ranveer Singh and Om Singh besides blood relation with the main accused and allegation of part criminal intimidation alleged, at present it requires serious consideration if material exists to implicate the present appellants in criminal conspiracy involving any criminal agreement, to cause the occurrence.

13. Matter requires consideration. Without making any further observation as may affect the final merit of the appeals and leaving all arguments open to the advance at that stage, we also note that at present there is no hope early hearing of present appeals. One of the appellant-Om Singh has taken ill. He has been referred to AIIMS, New Delhi.

14. Accordingly, the bail applications of those two accused are allowed.

15. Let the appellants -Ranveer Singh and Om Singh convicted and sentenced in the above mentioned sessions trials be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. On acceptance of bail bond and personal bond, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record.

16. Realization of 50% fine shall remain stayed during the pendency of present appeals. Remaining 50% of fine shall be deposited by the appellants within a month of his release. Order on Appeal

17. Office is directed to prepare paper book.

18. List in due course for final hearing. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 I.A.Siddiqui (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.)