High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150579 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32936 of 2023 Applicant :- Kuldeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Mishra,Pradeep Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saumitra Dwivedi Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Sri Saumitra Dwivedi, Advocate apprise the Court that yesterday he has filed his power on behalf of he informant in the Registry of this Court but him name has not been shown in the cause list.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Saumitra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 690 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B, 34 IPC, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and seven others and one unknown persons and according to the FIR when brother of informant came at district court in police custody on the date fixed of his case then co-accused Sunil Chachoda, Pappan @ Sanjay and Viru opened indiscriminate firing upon him and due to the indiscriminate firing brother of the informant and one police constable sustained injuries and thereafter when public gathered at spot then applicant and three other accused persons provided cover to all the three persons who opened fire and due to the cover provided by them the principal accused who caused injuries, managed to escape. 5. It is further mentioned in the FIR that when brother of the applicant has taken to hospital then he was declared dead. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire allegation of providing cover to the principal accused against the applicant is totally false and baseless and actually applicant was not present at spot this fact itself is evident from the third statement of the informant recorded by the Investigating Officer. 7. He further submitted that on the date and time of incident, applicant appeared in the court of Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Haryana in another case and this fact is evident from annexure-13 to the affidavit. 8. He further submitted that the role of causing fire arm injury has been assigned to co-accused Sunil, Pappan and Viru and applicant has been made accused in the present matter with the help of section 120B IPC. 9. He further submitted that one co-accused Mohit has already been released on bail although he was not named in the FIR but during investigation his complicity was revealed as one of conspirator like applicant. Although he fairly conceded that bail application of one co-accused Manish has been dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court but case of applicant is distinguishable from him as from the possession of the co-accused Manish, a country-made pistol was recovered. 10. He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 7.12.2022, therefore, applicant may be released on bail. 11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that deceased was murdered in the district court while he was in police custody and in the incident one police constable also sustained injuries and there is specific allegation against the applicant that applicant provided cover to the accused persons who caused fire arm injury to the deceased. 12. They further submitted that from the CCTV footage which was collected by the Investigating Officer it also reflects that two persons on two different motorcycles were waiting the principal accused persons and therefore, story narrated by the informant in the FIR also finds corroboration from the CCTV footage. 13. Learned counsel for the informant further submits that after considering the entire facts of the case, bail application of co- accused Manish was dismissed by this Court and case of co- accused Mohit who was released on bail is distinguishable from the case of applicant as he was not named in the FIR. 14. Learned AGA also pointed out that applicant is having criminal history of four other cases. Although he fairly conceded out of four cases, two cases are of Excise Act and one case is of Gangsters Act and another one is of section 174 A IPC. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 16. Although role of causing fire arm injury has not been assigned to the applicant and in the third statement informant also stated that applicant has not come in Hapur on the date of incident but in the previous two statements and in the FIR, he categorically stated that applicant was present at spot alongwith other accused persons and after firing, he provided cover to the three accused persons who caused injuries and from the footage of the CCTV also story of the prosecution mentioned in the FIR finds support. 17. It is a case in which in broad day light in the district court an accused was murdered while he was in police custody and in the incident, one police constable also sustained injuries. 18. Further, bail application of one similarly placed co-accused Manish has already rejected by this Court. 19. Further, whether applicant was present at spot or not at the time of incident, it can only be decided by the trial court and this Court, at this stage, can not give any finding, in this regard. 20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 21. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected. 22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 27.7.2023 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad