High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21673 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail. Let applicant- Daya Nath Pandey Alias Kallu be released on bail in Case Crime No. 212 of 2021, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 34, 120B IPC, Police Station- Rohaniya, District- Varanasi, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- 1. The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release. 2. He will not tamper with the witnesses. 3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 6.8.2022 A.P. Pandey Digitally signed by ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY Date: 2022.08.11 13:58:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Applicant :- Daya Nath Pandey Alias Kallu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh, Advocate, on behalf of the informant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh and Sri Amit Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I, appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is next contended that applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.. It is further submitted that in post-mortem report, five entry wounds and five exit wounds of fire arm were found to have been sustained by the deceased on his person and cause of death has been recorded as shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injury. It is further submitted that there was land dispute between Diwakaer Upadhyaya and deceased Narayan Dutt Tiwari. Applicant has nothing to do with the present offence. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or at his pointing out. It is next submitted submitted that as per the statements of Abhishek Srivastav (who had informed the police by dialing 112 number about the incident) and Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, Adarsh Kumar Srivastava and Anil Kumar Srivastava, whose house were situated at the place of incident, there is no whisper of presence of complainant or his alleged eye-witnesses namely Amit Kumar Dubey and Ajay Kumar Mishra. It is further submitted that in the second statement of Abhishek Srivastava, who informed the police about the incident, he has stated that the first person who reached the spot was Pradhan of village and he only told the name of person, who was lying there i.e. Narayan Dutt Tiwari (deceased) and on query made by the investigating officer that did informant reached at the time of incident, he replied that informant came after the dead body was taken by the police, which makes the entire prosecution story very doubtful, which has also been supported by the statement village Pradhan. It is further submitted that as per electronic surveillance and other evidence, the crime was committed by accused persons namely Devendra Narayan Singh @ Munna, Ayush Sharma Alias Aaashoo, Rama Shankar Singh alias Riku, Hemant Singh alias Kundal, Rajendra Sigh alias Rajan and Manish Singh alias Sonu, while complainant had lodged F.I.R. against applicant, co-accused Neeraj Pandey, Dheeraj Pandey and two unknown persons. It is further submitted that during investigation, location of complainant, and other witnesses namely Ajay Mishra and Amit Dubey was neither at the Shooltankeshwar temple and nor at the place of incident, which is annexed as Annexure-44 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is further submitted that there is great contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. It is further submitted that during investigation, investigating officer did not found the involvement of named accused persons. It is further submitted that prosecution itself was not satisfied that incident of murder of deceased was committed by the accused persons named in the F.I.R. and as accused named in the F.I.R. may not get the benefit of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., charge sheet has been filed against them. Co- accused Devendra Narayan Singh @ Munna Singh and Rajendra Singh @ Rajan and Ayush Sharma @ Ashu Sharma have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 12.5.2022, 12.5.2022 and 12.5.2022 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 5952 of 2022, 3527 of 2022 and 8041 of 2022. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 8.4.2021. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer. Learned counsel for the informant has also vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and has argued that bail of named accused- namely Dheeraj Kumar Pandey has already been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.5.2022 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 38821 of 2021. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of