High Court
Case Details
3-As per the prosecution case in brief, complainant- Kaushal Singh has lodged an F.I.R. against 14 named accused persons including the present applicant- Pankaj Thakur and 3-4 unknown persons alleging inter-alia that they, with an intention to commit the murder of his brother Panchanand, came to his office and started vandalizing. On objecting, they started beating him with lathi, stick (danda) and iron rods (sariya) on their hand and also forcibly snatched Rs. 12,000/- from his pocket and a gold-chain from his neck. F.I.R. also alleges that applicant-Pankaj Thakur took out a pistol and placed it on the chest of his brother by saying that Saurabh Thakur, Sachin Vadhoria and Deepak Rathore have sent them to kill you and fired a shot, which missed and his life was narrowly saved. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of political enmity between the injured and Saurabh Thakur. The general and vague allegation has been levelled against the applicant that he fired a shot at the injured Panchanand, but the same was missed. No offence under Section 109(1) of BNS, 2023 is made out against the applicant. There is no recovery of any incriminating material from the possession of the applicant. The applicant has a criminal history of four cases, out of which in one case, he has been acquitted by the trial court whereas in other three cases, applicant is on bail, copies whereof have been annexed as Annexure No. 9 to the affidavit filed in support of this bail application. Lastly it is submitted that the applicant is ready to furnish bail bond. The co-accused Sachin Suryavanshi, Shivam Chauhan, Jacky, Ashish Goswami and Pappu have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 20.06.2025, 20.06.2025, 26.06.2025 and 04.07.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 20500 of 2025, 16753 of 2025, 16577 of 2025, 19732 of 2025 and 22287 of 2025 respectively, therefore, applicant who is languishing in jail since 05.03.2025 is also entitled to be released on bail. 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that in this case, three persons namely Nagendra, Panchanand and Om Pratap have received injures, which are enumerated below :- Injuries of injured-Nagendra (i) Lacerated wound 3.5x0.5 cm on right side head 9 cm from right ear fresh clotted blood present. (ii) Lacerated wound 4x0.5 cm on right side head 1 cm from injury no. 1 with surrounded by traumatic swelling 5x3 cm fresh clotted blood present. (iii) Lacerated wound 4x0.5 cm on right side forehead 5 cm from right eyebrow fresh clotted blood present. (iv) Red contusion 21 cm on left shoulder, complain of vertigo. Injuries of injured-Panchanand (i) Lacerated wound 3.5x0.5 cm on right side head 10 cm from right ear with surrounded by traumatic swelling 4x3 cm fresh clotted blood present. (ii) Red abradded traumatic swelling 6x5 cm on left forearm. (iii) Red contused traumatic swelling 16x6 cm on right arm with elbow. (iv) Complain of pain on both side of back of chest. Complain of vertigo. Injuries of injured-Om Pratap (i) Lacerated wound 4x0.5 cm on left side head 4 cm from left ear. Fresh clotted blood is present. (ii) Red Contusion 3x1 cm on left side back of ear with complain of diminishing of hearing. (iii) Red contused traumatic swelling 6x3 cm on left leg. 6-Referring the criminal history of the applicant, it is submitted that applicant has not disclosed his complete criminal history. Though the applicant has disclosed that apart from this case, he has criminal history of four other cases, whereas the correct fact is that apart from this case, he has criminal history of following six other cases:- (i) Case Crime No. 1041 of 2016, U/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra. (ii) Case Crime No. 591 of 2018, U/s 147, 323, 354, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra. (iii) Case Crime No. 449 of 2022, U/s 384 I.P.C., P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra. (iv) Case Crime No. 19 of 2022, U/s ¾ The Public Gambling Act., P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra. (v) Case Crime No. 103 of 2024, U/s 147, 323, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra. (vi) Case Crime No. 506 of 2024, U/s 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S., P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra. On the strength of above facts, it is submitted that it is a repeated offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Hence the instant bail application is liable to be rejected. 7-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that apart from allegation of assault, it is also the case of the prosecution that the applicant was hired for committing the murder of injured-Panchanand and by placing the pistol on his chest, fired a shot but fortunately the said fire missed. This Court is also of the view that to constitute an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. / 109(1) B.N.S. it is not enough to simply cause hurt, but there must be a clear intention or knowledge that action could lead to death, which is present in this case. Hence, considering the act of the applicant, the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that no offence under Section 109(1) B.N.S. is made out, is not liable to be accepted at this stage. 8-So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that other co-accused have been granted bail as noted above is concerned, after going to the said bail orders, I find that co-accused Jacky, Sachin Suryavanshi and Shivam Chauhan have been granted bail considering the submission on their behalf that no specific role has been attributed to them and they have no criminal history. So far as the bail to co-accused Ashish Goswami is concerned, he has been granted bail extending parity of bail order of Sachin Suryavanshi. Similarly co-accused Pappu, who has a criminal history of one case only, has been granted bail considering the parity of bail order of Sachin Suryavanshi, Shivam Chauhan and Ashish Goswami. Considering the role attributed to the applicant and his long criminal history, as noted above, his case is distinguishable from the case of other co-accused persons. 9-It is not in dispute that applicant is habitual offender and has criminal history of 6 cases. The criminal cases mentioned at serial nos. (iv) and (v) have not been disclosed by the applicant. So far as submission on behalf of applicant that in one case being case crime no. 1041 of 2016 as noted above, applicant has been acquitted by the trial court is concerned, I find that the said acquittal is due to reason that prosecution witnesses nos. 1 to 3 of the fact have turned hostile. Hence in case of his release at this stage possibility of his threatening the complainant and injured cannot be ruled out. 10-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, criminal history of the applicant, nature of injury and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 11-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 12-It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. 13-Liberty is granted to the applicant to file second bail after the statement of complainant and injured persons are recorded before the trial court. Order Date :- 23.7.2025 Saurabh
3-As per the prosecution case in brief, complainant- Kaushal Singh has lodged an F.I.R. against 14 named accused persons including the present applicant- Pankaj Thakur and 3-4 unknown persons alleging inter-alia that they, with an intention to commit the murder of his brother Panchanand, came to his office and started vandalizing. On objecting, they started beating him with lathi, stick (danda) and iron rods (sariya) on their hand and also forcibly snatched Rs. 12,000/- from his pocket and a gold-chain from his neck. F.I.R. also alleges that applicant-Pankaj Thakur took out a pistol and placed it on the chest of his brother by saying that Saurabh Thakur, Sachin Vadhoria and Deepak Rathore have sent them to kill you and fired a shot, which missed and his life was narrowly saved. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of political enmity between the injured and Saurabh Thakur. The general and vague allegation has been levelled against the applicant that he fired a shot at the injured Panchanand, but the same was missed. No offence under Section 109(1) of BNS, 2023 is made out against the applicant. There is no recovery of any incriminating material from the possession of the applicant. The applicant has a criminal history of four cases, out of which in one case, he has been acquitted by the trial court whereas in other three cases, applicant is on bail, copies whereof have been annexed as Annexure No. 9 to the affidavit filed in support of this bail application. Lastly it is submitted that the applicant is ready to furnish bail bond. The co-accused Sachin Suryavanshi, Shivam Chauhan, Jacky, Ashish Goswami and Pappu have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 20.06.2025, 20.06.2025, 26.06.2025 and 04.07.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 20500 of 2025, 16753 of 2025, 16577 of 2025, 19732 of 2025 and 22287 of 2025 respectively, therefore, applicant who is languishing in jail since 05.03.2025 is also entitled to be released on bail. 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that in this case, three persons namely Nagendra, Panchanand and Om Pratap have received injures, which are enumerated below :- Injuries of injured-Nagendra (i) Lacerated wound 3.5x0.5 cm on right side head 9 cm from right ear fresh clotted blood present. (ii) Lacerated wound 4x0.5 cm on right side head 1 cm from injury no. 1 with surrounded by traumatic swelling 5x3 cm fresh clotted blood present. (iii) Lacerated wound 4x0.5 cm on right side forehead 5 cm from right eyebrow fresh clotted blood present. (iv) Red contusion 21 cm on left shoulder, complain of vertigo. Injuries of injured-Panchanand (i) Lacerated wound 3.5x0.5 cm on right side head 10 cm from right ear with surrounded by traumatic swelling 4x3 cm fresh clotted blood present. (ii) Red abradded traumatic swelling 6x5 cm on left forearm. (iii) Red contused traumatic swelling 16x6 cm on right arm with elbow. (iv) Complain of pain on both side of back of chest. Complain of vertigo. Injuries of injured-Om Pratap (i) Lacerated wound 4x0.5 cm on left side head 4 cm from left ear. Fresh clotted blood is present. (ii) Red Contusion 3x1 cm on left side back of ear with complain of diminishing of hearing. (iii) Red contused traumatic swelling 6x3 cm on left leg. 6-Referring the criminal history of the applicant, it is submitted that applicant has not disclosed his complete criminal history. Though the applicant has disclosed that apart from this case, he has criminal history of four other cases, whereas the correct fact is that apart from this case, he has criminal history of following six other cases:- (i) Case Crime No. 1041 of 2016, U/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra. (ii) Case Crime No. 591 of 2018, U/s 147, 323, 354, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra. (iii) Case Crime No. 449 of 2022, U/s 384 I.P.C., P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra. (iv) Case Crime No. 19 of 2022, U/s ¾ The Public Gambling Act., P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra. (v) Case Crime No. 103 of 2024, U/s 147, 323, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra. (vi) Case Crime No. 506 of 2024, U/s 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S., P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra. On the strength of above facts, it is submitted that it is a repeated offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Hence the instant bail application is liable to be rejected. 7-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that apart from allegation of assault, it is also the case of the prosecution that the applicant was hired for committing the murder of injured-Panchanand and by placing the pistol on his chest, fired a shot but fortunately the said fire missed. This Court is also of the view that to constitute an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. / 109(1) B.N.S. it is not enough to simply cause hurt, but there must be a clear intention or knowledge that action could lead to death, which is present in this case. Hence, considering the act of the applicant, the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that no offence under Section 109(1) B.N.S. is made out, is not liable to be accepted at this stage. 8-So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that other co-accused have been granted bail as noted above is concerned, after going to the said bail orders, I find that co-accused Jacky, Sachin Suryavanshi and Shivam Chauhan have been granted bail considering the submission on their behalf that no specific role has been attributed to them and they have no criminal history. So far as the bail to co-accused Ashish Goswami is concerned, he has been granted bail extending parity of bail order of Sachin Suryavanshi. Similarly co-accused Pappu, who has a criminal history of one case only, has been granted bail considering the parity of bail order of Sachin Suryavanshi, Shivam Chauhan and Ashish Goswami. Considering the role attributed to the applicant and his long criminal history, as noted above, his case is distinguishable from the case of other co-accused persons. 9-It is not in dispute that applicant is habitual offender and has criminal history of 6 cases. The criminal cases mentioned at serial nos. (iv) and (v) have not been disclosed by the applicant. So far as submission on behalf of applicant that in one case being case crime no. 1041 of 2016 as noted above, applicant has been acquitted by the trial court is concerned, I find that the said acquittal is due to reason that prosecution witnesses nos. 1 to 3 of the fact have turned hostile. Hence in case of his release at this stage possibility of his threatening the complainant and injured cannot be ruled out. 10-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, criminal history of the applicant, nature of injury and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 11-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 12-It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. 13-Liberty is granted to the applicant to file second bail after the statement of complainant and injured persons are recorded before the trial court. Order Date :- 23.7.2025 Saurabh