Gandhi v. State of U.P

1.Heard Sri Brij Mohan Sahai, learned counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Kumar Pandey and Sri Amit Tripathi, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Anant Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/ informant.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Mohd. Junaid Beg) is languishing in jail since 26.06.2024 in Case Crime No.143 of 2024, under Sections 302, 396, 149, 406 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kurebhar, District-Sultanpur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that because of some monetary dispute in between the deceased and the co- accused persons, namely, Priyanshu Dubey & Shadab Beg, Priyanshu Dubey opened fire over the deceased, as result whereof, he died. He next added that the allegation in the first information report is evident that the role assigned to the present applicant is of beating the victim (since deceased) when he was caught hold by the co-accused Ateek Beg @ Gandhi. Further role of the co-accused, Ateek Beg @ Gandhi is of exhortation also but the main role of firing is attributed to the co-accused Priyanshu Dubey and the cause of death is firearm injury. The aforesaid co-accused, Ateek Beg @ Gandhi has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12835 of 2024; Ateek Beg @ Gandhi vs. State of U.P..

4. Therefore, Sri Sahai has submitted that the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of main accused, Priyanshu Dubey. He has also stated that the co-accused, Ateek Beg @ Gandhi is having criminal history of three cases whereas the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be released on bail. The charge- sheet has been filed and the trial is going on, therefore, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. Further submission is that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

5. Per contra, Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/ informant has submitted that the present applicant was actively involved in committing the crime of murder and he was beating the victim (since deceased) along with the co- accused, Priyanshu Dubey. The deceased has suffered two more injuries which might be caused on account of assault. However, this fact has not been disputed that the role of firing has been attributed to the co-accused, Prayanshu Dubey.

6. Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that the applicant is named in the first information report and he has been assigned the role of assault through kicks and fists and he was with the main accused, Prayanshu Dubey, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires from the narration in the first information report that the role of the applicant is altogether different as the main role is assigned to the co-accused, Priyanshu Dubey for opening the fire over the deceased and there is one gunshot injury as is apparent from the injury report.

8. This court has also noticed the fact that no motive is assigned to the present applicant as dispute was in between the deceased and the co-accused persons namely, Priyanshu Dubey and Sadab Beg. Further, the applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

10. Accordingly, the instant bail applicant is allowed.

11. Let the applicant (Mohd. Junaid Beg) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. . Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

1.Heard Sri Brij Mohan Sahai, learned counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Kumar Pandey and Sri Amit Tripathi, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Anant Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/ informant.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Mohd. Junaid Beg) is languishing in jail since 26.06.2024 in Case Crime No.143 of 2024, under Sections 302, 396, 149, 406 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kurebhar, District-Sultanpur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that because of some monetary dispute in between the deceased and the co- accused persons, namely, Priyanshu Dubey & Shadab Beg, Priyanshu Dubey opened fire over the deceased, as result whereof, he died. He next added that the allegation in the first information report is evident that the role assigned to the present applicant is of beating the victim (since deceased) when he was caught hold by the co-accused Ateek Beg @ Gandhi. Further role of the co-accused, Ateek Beg @ Gandhi is of exhortation also but the main role of firing is attributed to the co-accused Priyanshu Dubey and the cause of death is firearm injury. The aforesaid co-accused, Ateek Beg @ Gandhi has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12835 of 2024; Ateek Beg @ Gandhi vs. State of U.P..

4. Therefore, Sri Sahai has submitted that the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of main accused, Priyanshu Dubey. He has also stated that the co-accused, Ateek Beg @ Gandhi is having criminal history of three cases whereas the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be released on bail. The charge- sheet has been filed and the trial is going on, therefore, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. Further submission is that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

5. Per contra, Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/ informant has submitted that the present applicant was actively involved in committing the crime of murder and he was beating the victim (since deceased) along with the co- accused, Priyanshu Dubey. The deceased has suffered two more injuries which might be caused on account of assault. However, this fact has not been disputed that the role of firing has been attributed to the co-accused, Prayanshu Dubey.

6. Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that the applicant is named in the first information report and he has been assigned the role of assault through kicks and fists and he was with the main accused, Prayanshu Dubey, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires from the narration in the first information report that the role of the applicant is altogether different as the main role is assigned to the co-accused, Priyanshu Dubey for opening the fire over the deceased and there is one gunshot injury as is apparent from the injury report.

8. This court has also noticed the fact that no motive is assigned to the present applicant as dispute was in between the deceased and the co-accused persons namely, Priyanshu Dubey and Sadab Beg. Further, the applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

10. Accordingly, the instant bail applicant is allowed.

11. Let the applicant (Mohd. Junaid Beg) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. . Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]