High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163825 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54904 of 2021 Applicant :- Vinay Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeepta Kumar Shahi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghav Dwivedi,Swetashwa Agarwal Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Abdulla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Manav Chaurasiya, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 27 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station- Binwar, District- Hamirpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and according to the FIR, on 28.02.2021 when nephew of the informant was going on a motorcycle then on the way applicant intercepted and shot him. It is further mentioned in the FIR that informant, who was coming bare foot, witnessed the incident along with one Ankit and he informed the police at 112 and thereafter Ambulance has taken his nephew to the hospital from where he was referred to Kanpur but during treatment he died. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and applicant never committed the murder of the deceased. He further submitted that although, in the FIR there is no motive of crime was mentioned but when the statement of the informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then he stated that as applicant was having illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased, therefore, he committed his murder and this fact itself shows that as informant and other family members of the deceased were having suspicion that applicant was having illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased, therefore, they falsely implicated the applicant in the present case. 6. He further submitted that although, from the perusal of the statement of the informant, it appears that applicant opened two shots but only one shot hit the deceased but from the perusal of the post-mortem report of the deceased, it appears that he sustained two fire arm entry wounds and this fact clearly suggests that actually informant was not present at the spot and he was not an eye-witness. 7. He further submitted that in the FIR it is specifically mentioned that Ankit was also present along with the informant near the spot but surprisingly his statement was recorded by Investigating Officer on 16.05.2021 i.e. after about more than three months and this fact clearly suggests that he was actually not the eye-witness. 8. He further submitted that although, during investigation Investigating Officer recorded the statements of three other witnesses, who claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses but their statements were also recorded quite belatedly and from their statements, it appears that neither Ankit nor informant was present at the spot. 9. He further submitted that site-plan of the case also totally belies the story narrated by the informant in the FIR. 10. He further submitted that when the father of the informant called a report with regard to information given by the informant at 112 then concerned department provided the printout of the call made by the informant on the date of incident at 112 and from its perusal, it appears that incident occurred at the tube-well of one Shiv Narayan Prajapati but from the site plan, it appears that incident did not occur at the tube-well of Shiv Narayan Prajapati. He further submitted that from the RTI information it also reflects that informant informed that somebody opened fire upon deceased and thus in the call made at 112 informant did not even disclose the name of any one including applicant and these facts further strengthen the defence case that actually informant was not an eye- witness and only due to previous enmity, applicant has been roped in the present matter. 11. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 04.03.2021 i.e. for more than two years. 12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that informant and number of other witnesses are the eye-witnesses of the incident and they clearly stated that they witnessed the applicant while he was opening fire upon the deceased and if there is any delay in recording of the statements of some eye-witnesses during investigation then also no benefit could be extended to the applicant at this stage. 13. Learned counsel for the informant further pointed out that during investigation statement of the informant was promptly recorded and there is no delay in recording of his statement and he is also one of the eye-witness, therefore, from this angle also no benefit can be extended to the applicant on the ground that statements of other eye-witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer quite belatedly. 14. He further submitted that the dispute with regard to number of injuries and seat of injuries and distance of shot can only be properly adjudicated by the trial court and this Court cannot ascertain all these facts at this stage, therefore, applicant does not deserve bail. 15. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 16. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant argued number of points, but all the arguments advanced by him can only be properly appreciated by the trial court and this Court at this stage cannot appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as at this stage no finding can be given with regard to veracity of the prosecution witnesses and if due to negligence of Investigating Officer some delay occurred in recording the statement of some eye-witnesses then no benefit can be extended the applicant at this stage, especially if there is no delay in recording the statement of the informant, who is also one of the eye-witness. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 18. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. 19. 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 :- 11.8.2023 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad