Bheekam Singh v. State of U.P., wherein
Case Details
Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23335 of 2022 Applicant :- Bheekam Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Agrawal,Vishnu Dutt Tiwari Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Vishnu Dutt Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Om Prakash, the learned AGA for the State. This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Bheekam Singh for enlarging him on bail in Session Trial No. 644 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 863 of 2018, under Sections 308, 506 I.P.C, registered at Police Station- New Agra, District- Agra. The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 24.5.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by the Om Prakash Singh/ complainant before P.S. New Agra, District Agra under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308 and 506 IPC against the applicant and as many as 4 others with an allegation that during the course of certain activities so undergone, a ruckus occurred, pursuant whereto the applicant armed with a rifle pounced upon the complainant and others, pursuant whereto the injuries were sustained. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court towards page-40, which happens to be the Medico Legal Injury Report of one Sri Prem Singh in which it has been shown that he has sustained injury by a hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of this Court towards page-42 of the bail application so as to contend that the injuries so sought to be sustained is grievous and dangerous, to life. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that charge sheet has been submitted against other co-accused and not against the applicant, pursuant whereto the proceedings purported to be under Section 319 CrPC was undergone, wherein the applicant had put to challenge the same and learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court towards page-125 of the bail so as to contend that the applicant had filed application under Section 482 CrPC No. 9795 of 2022, Bheekam Singh vs. State of U.P., wherein applicant was directed to avail the remedy by preferring bail application, which has eventually been rejected, against which he is before this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant has next sought to argue that even in case, the prosecution case is taken to its face value, then inevitable conclusion stands drawn, that the injury so sought to be sustained by the injured was caused by a hard and blunt object and it cannot be even in a remotest form caused by virtue of gunshot fire and thus the applicant is falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the applicant has next sought to contend that so far as the objection so sought to be raised by learned A.G.A with regard to the pendency of Criminal Case nos. 653 of 2007 and 735 of 2017 are concerned, same is of no relevance, particularly in view of the fact that the applicant has been bailed out and that's why he has been confined to jail with effect from 24.5.2022. If the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail, he be enlarged on bail.He has argued the co-accused Pradeep @ Dainy has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 8.10.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application 35578 of 2018, with whom the applicant is seeking parity. Countering the said submission, the learned AGA has opposed the bail while arguing that merely because injuries have been sustained by a hard and blunt object, same cannot be a ground to hold the applicant innocent, particularly, in view of the fact that that the applicant was armed with rifle and more so the offence under Section 147 is made out against him. However, he could not dispute the explanation so offered by the applicant orally with respect to criminal history. Sri Tiwari who appears for the complainant has opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact that criminal history has been explained and co-accused has been granted bail. Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail as co-accused Pradeep @ Dainy has been enlarged on bail and criminal history has been properly explained, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances. Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons. In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Bheekam Singh involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail 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 that :- i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. (ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. (iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Any observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 9.6.2022 N.S.Rathour Digitally signed by NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2022.06.09 18:55:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad