71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2940 of 2022 v. State of U.P.) on the ground that there was concealment of criminal

Heard Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Reenu Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Syed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36331 of 2021 ( Lucky @ Rikesh vs. State of U.P.) on the ground that there was concealment of criminal history of 15 cases including the present one in the same. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Lucky @ Rikesh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 147 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 304, 452 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Harduaganj, District Aligarh. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the criminal history of the applicant has been disclosed and explained in paragraph 26 of the affidavit in support of bail application. It is argued that out of 15 cases of the criminal history of the applicant 03 cases are under the Goondas Act which have lived their life, 07 cases under Section 307 I.P.C and various other sections in which the applicant is on bail, in 03 cases he has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him, one case is under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 506 I.P.C. in which he is on bail and even in a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. he is on bail. It is argued that the criminal history of the applicant is disclosed and fully explained. Learned counsel has argued that the first information report of the present case was lodged on 04.04.2021 by Surjeet Singh against the applicant and 04 other co-accused persons namely Subhash, Bunty, Sandeep and Pradeep alleging therein that on 29.03.2021 at about 2 pm Mahaveer Singh, the father of the first informant and Shakuntla Devi his mother were sitting and talking in the house on which the five accused persons armed with lathi and danda came there and assaulted his father, he and his mother intervened and tried to save him on which both the person were also assaulted. Prithvi Singh the elder brother of the first informant and Smt. Saloni Devi his wife and other persons came there, on seeing them the accused persons while abusing them ran away. His father has received serious injuries who was taken to medical college from where he was referred to another hospital where he was declared dead. There was enmity with Subhash with regard to election which was stated to be the reason for committing the offence. It is argued that co- accused Subhash has been exonerated by the police. It is further argued that the first informant and his mother Shakuntla Devi are although stated to have received injuries in the first information report but they have not been examined and there is no medical examination report of the said two persons on record. Learned counsel has further argued that although the deceased Mahaveer Singh was found to have received 05 injuries on his body but the doctor has opined the cause of death as cardiopulmonary arrest with septicemic shock as a result of chronic lung disease which was not due to the alleged injuries received on his person. It is argued that the present incident is alleged to have taken place on 29.03.2021 at about 14:00 hours but the first information report was lodged on 04.04.2021 at 13:53 hours which is after about 05 days for which there is no plausible explanation regarding the delay in lodging of the same. General role has been assigned to the applicant along with other co-accused persons. There is no specification of the roles of the accused persons. It is argued that co-accused Banti; Pradeep; Sandip have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 29.10.2021, 01.11.2021 and 08.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31674 of 2021, 37453 of 2021 and 33815 of 2021, the copy of the said orders is annexed as Annexure-12 to the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 12.06.2021. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the first informant argued that co- accused Subhash was although exonerated by the police but against the same a protest petition was filed which was allowed and he was summoned against which he has filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court which is pending for disposal. It is argued that the applicant is named in the first information report and has been assigned the role along with other co-accused persons. It is further argued that the manner of assault is quite specific and there was no chance of false implication of the applicant due to any misidentity. Both the learned counsels have argued that the applicant has very bad criminal antecedents which are evident from his involvement in 15 previous cases. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report and has been assigned the role of assault upon the deceased and the first informant and his mother. The applicant has a long criminal antecedents of 15 cases. There has been misuse of the liberty of bail granted to him. The long criminal history of the applicant does not entitle him to be released on bail. In so far as the co-accused persons who have been granted bail are concerned, co-accused Banti was having criminal history of three minor cases as stated in his order, co-accused Pradeep was having criminal history of one case and as such their cases are distinguishable from that of the applicant in so far as the criminal antecedents are concerned. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 29.4.2022 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) SINGH RATHOR Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad