Laddi, Mr. Ashutosh Singh, the learned counsel for v. M. Zaidi
Case Details
Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44690 of 2021 Applicant :- Sachin Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava,Aditya Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Connected 2. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43387 of 2021 Applicant :- Sushil Saini Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 3. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43508 of 2021 Applicant :- Tinku Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raju Kumar,A.Z.Khan,Abhishek Yadav,Narendra Kumar,Shravana Kumar Yadav,Tulsi Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 4. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55881 of 2021 Applicant :- Guru Sahab Singh @ Laddi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 5. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5586 of 2022 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 6. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7869 of 2022 Applicant :- Sukhwindra @ Sukkha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ch. Dil Nisar,A.Z.Khan,Vinay Prakash Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 7. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39377 of 2022 Applicant :- Fakira And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- M J Akhtar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant- Sachin Gupta, Mr. Chandra Shekhar Kushwaha, the learned counsel for applicant-Sushil Saini, Mr. A. Z. Khan, the learned counsel for applicant-Tinku and Sukhwindra @ Sukkham, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant-Guru Sahab Singh @ Laddi, Mr. Ashutosh Singh, the learned counsel for applicant Manoj Kumar, Mr. V. M. Zaidi, the learned senior counsel assisted Mr. M. J. Akhtar, the learned counsel for applicants-Fakira & Sonu respectively and the learned A.G.A. for State. 2. Perused the record. 3. These applications for bail have been filed by applicants- Sachin Gupta, Sushil Saini, Tinku, Guru Sahab Singh @ Laddi, Manoj Kumar, Sukhwindra @ Sukkha, Fakira and Sonu seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 128 of 2019, under Sections 272, 273, 304, 328, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 60A Excise Act, Police Station-Deoband, District-Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 08.02.2019, a prompt F.I.R. dated 08.02.2019 was lodged by first informant, Sub-inspector Pramod Kumar, which was registered as Case Crime No. 128 of 2019, under Section 60A Excise Act , Police Station-Deoband, District-Saharanpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R., an unknown person has been arraigned as an accused.. 5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R is to the effect that on 07.02.2019 certain persons went to the house of Gyan Singh to attend the 13th day function (Terhi) of some person. At this stage Gyan Singh and his other associates are alleged to have consumed spurious liquor, on account of which, certain persons died. 6. After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. He first recorded the statement of first informant and thereafter other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to find the complicity of accused persons in the crime in question. 7. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submit that after completion of investigation of aforementioned case crime number, Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet dated 23.03.2019. By means of aforesaid charge-sheet as many as 17 persons have been charge-sheet. However, out of 17 charge- sheet accused following nine charge-sheet accused have already been enlarged on bail: i. Charge-sheeted accused Arjun has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6714 of 2022. ii. Charge-sheeted accused Rajja @ Raj Kumar has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17418 of 2020. iii. Charge-sheeted accused Amit Kumar Gupta has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 16.09.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22527 of 2021. iv. Charge-sheeted accused Vipin Kumar has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.01.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23787 of 2021. v. Charge-sheeted accused Lakhvindra @ Lakkha @ Baba has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26027 of 2022. vi. Charge-sheeted accused Kuldeep @ Guddu has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43274 of 2019. vii. .Charge-sheeted accused Master Sunil @ Subhas has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 16.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43762 of 2019. viii. Charge-sheeted accused Hardeo Singh has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.08.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55852 of 2021. ix. Charge-sheeted accused Indrapal has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 29.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55401 of 2021. 8. Photocopies of bail orders of aforesaid co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail, have been placed before this Court in chronological order and are taken on record. 9. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicants contends that all the applicants are innocent. Applicants are not named in the F.I.R. but they are charge-sheeted accused. Learned counsel for applicants further submit that case of present applicants is similar and identical to that of aforementioned co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail. There is no such such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be distinguished from the aforementioned co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail, so as to deny them bail. It is then contended by learned counsel for applicant that for the facts as noted above and for the facts and reasons mentioned in bail orders aforementioned co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail. Present applicants are also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 10 It is also contended that even otherwise, applicants have clean antecedents. Applicants have no criminal history prior to the date of present F.I.R. giving rise to present criminal proceedings, the subsequent F.I.Rs. that have been registered against applicants also relate to the same incident. It is then contended that all the applicants are in jail since, February/ March 2019. As such all the applicants have undergone incarceration for a sufficiently long time. In case applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. It is lastly submitted that charge- sheet has already been submitted against applicants, therefore, the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicants, stands crystallised. As such, custodial arrest of applicants is not absolutely necessary during the course of trial. On the cumulative strength of aforesaid, learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity also. 14. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present applications for bail. Referring to the material on record, he submits that applicants are responsible for the crime in question. On account of act of applicants as many as 144 persons have died on account of consumption of spurious liquor. The role of applicants in the crime in question is as under: i. Applicant-1 is responsible for supply of spurious liquor. ii.Applicant-2 is responsible for sale of spurious liquor. iii. Applicant-3 is responsible for supply of spurious liquor. iv. Applicant-4 is responsible for manufacture of spurious liquor. v. Applicant-5 is responsible for supply of spurious liquor. vi. Applicant-6 is responsible for manufacture of spurious liquor. vii. Applicant-7 is responsible for sale of spurious liquor. viii. Applicants-8 Fakira and Sonu are responsible for sale of spurious liquor. 15. In view of above, learned A.G.A. contends that applicants do not deserve any indulgence by this Court. It is also contend by learned A.G.A. that on account of consumption of spurious liquor as many as 144 persons died. As such, no sympathy be shown by this court in favour of applicants.The bail applications are therefore, liable to be rejected. 16. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for applicants have rejoined the submissions urged by them. It is submitted that documentary evidence that has been collected by Investigating Officer relates to sale chemical from which spurious liquor was manufactured by them. In respect o sale or manufacturer of spurious liquor, no recovery has been made from the possession of applicants either. It is thus urged that case of present applicants is similar and identical to that of aforementioned nine charge-sheeted co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail. Therefore, applicants, though charge-sheeted accused are also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 17. Having heard the learned counsel for respective applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of evidence on record, accusations made as well as complicity of applicants coupled with the fact that applicants are not named in the F.I.R., out of 17 charge-sheeted co-accused, nine have already been enlarged on bail, the case of present applicants is similar and identical to that of bailed out charge-sheeted co-accused, there is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicants could be distinguished from other charge- sheeted co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail, so as to deny them bail, there is no evidence to show that spurious liquor was manufactured from the chemical that was purchased by some of the applicants and there is no evidence with regard sale and manufacture of spurious liquor by some of the applicants but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicants have made out a case for bail. 18. Accordingly, present applications for bail are allowed. 19. Let the applicants-applicants-Sachin Gupta, Sushil Saini, Tinku, Guru Sahab Singh @ Laddi, Manoj Kumar, Sukhwindra @ Sukkha, Fakira and Sonu, involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing their personal bonds each and two sureties each respectively in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) Applicants will not tamper with prosecution evidence. (ii) Applicants will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) Applicants will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) Applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 20. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicants and send them to prison. Order Date :- 12.12.2022 YK Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad