High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131232 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15175 of 2025 Applicant :- Udaiveer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Rizwan Ahamad,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vineet Kumar Singh
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Shri Virendra Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Udaiveer with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 90 of 2024, under Sections 103 (1), 109 & 3 (5) of B.N.S., & Section 30 of the Arms Act, Police Station Chaubiya, District- Etawah, during pendency of trial. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and is languishing in jail since 20.07.2024. He further submits that a first information report was lodged by the first informant against four named persons including the applicant with the allegation that on the date of incident all the accused persons armed with double barrel gun and county made pistols reached to the field of the first informant bearing Gata No. 2793 and started ploughing the field and when the first informant and his brother Amar Pal tried to stop them all the accused persons started firing upon them and somehow they managed to save themselves. Thereafter the brother of the first informant namely Rajveer Singh, who was coming from home, on the instigation of the applicant, Shyamveer, Ravi Kumar and Abhishek Kumar caught Rajveer Singh and the applicant had given fire arm shot upon him and he died on the spot. In the Post-Mortem report the cause of death has been shown as Shock and Hemorrhage due to Ante-Mortem fire arm injury. Recovery of double barrel gun and two live and one empty cartridge of 12 bore has been shown on the pointing out of the applicant. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the real fact is that the property bearing Gata No. 2793, in dispute, belongs to the applicant and other accused persons which is clear from the documents of the concerned Civil Court annexed at Page 136 & 137 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. On the date of incident when the applicant and other persons were doing agriculture work first informant and his other family members armed with Kulhari, Phawra and other weapons started fighting with the applicant and other accused persons and in the said scuffle the brother of the applicant namely Shyamveer sustained serious injuries over his head and during that incident one person died on spot and for the said incident the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. 2 BAIL No. 15175 of 2025 5. A First Information Report of the said incident was lodged from the side of the applicant, by the wife of the injured Shyamveer registered as Case Crime No. 0127 of 2024, under Sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 115 (2), 352 and 109 B.N.S. but the prosecution has not explained the injuries received on the person of Shyamveer. The injuries suffered by the applicant's side have not been explained by the prosecution and as such the prosecution is guilty of suppressing of genesis and the origin on the occurrence of the incident and has not presented the true version. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Babu Ram & others Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2008(3) SCC 709, Case of Lakshmi Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1976(4) SCC 394 to buttress the above submission. 6. Learned Senior Counsel, further submits that in case if the entire story is assumed to be true then also the fire arm shot has been given under the right to private defence as it is the applicant's side who is in possession of the said property and the complainant side was aggressor one and as such, the case would not travel beyond the purview of Section 105 BNS particularly in light of the fact that the deceased has sustained solitary gunshot injury and there has not been any repeated fire which has been made from the side of the accused and it cannot be said that the accused side has exceeded its right to private defence. 7. After arguing at some length learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since last more than one year. Learned Senior Counsel submits that charge sheet in this case has already been submitted before the Trial Court. In the charge-sheet 17 witnesses have been arrayed as prosecution witnesses. But till date, none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court. The case is proceeding at snail's pace. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. Without appreciation of evidence, applicant cannot be held to be guilty. Criminal history of five cases has been properly explained in paragraph no. 27 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. It is further submitted that the co-accused Ravi Kumar, Shyamveer and Abhishek Kumar have been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 22.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43189 of 2024, vide order dated 01.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3319 of 2025. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 8. Per contra, Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail contending that the applicant has been assigned the main role of giving fire arm shot and as such no indulgence can be granted to the applicant. 9. Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant contends that the nominated persons in the FIR giving rise to the instant Case Crime No. 90 of 2024 are the aggressors inasmuch as the plot in dispute i.e. Plot No. 2793M belongs to the first informant and has been under his cultivatory possession. The independent witness Ajay Kumar son of Sukhbir Singh has deposed that applicants side were forcefully ploughing the plot of Satyapal (informant). The applicants side had also lodged an FIR dated 17.11.2024 at 14:38 hours regarding the same incident through an Application under Section 175(30 of the BNSS giving rise to Case Crime No. 127 of 2024 implicating five known and one unknown person including the informant of the present case namely Satyapal Singh in which the husband of the informant Smt. Rubi 3 BAIL No. 15175 of 2025 i.e. Shyamveer had sustained grievious injuries. After investigation the allegations in the FIR have been found false and final report has been submitted establishing the falsity of the version of the applicants side. The applicant has been assigned the main role of firing with his double barrel licensed gun resulting in death of the deceased. It is, accordingly, submitted that the bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, I find that the first informant of the case is also one of the eye-witness and according to the FIR version the applicant caused the fire arm injury to Rajveer Singh (brother of the informant) who succumbed to the gun shot injuries. The other nominated persons have been assigned the role of catching hold and have been released on bail. From the side of the accused here is only one injured namely Shyamveer S/o Sri Krishan with head injury. The said injured was hospitalized and discharged after 7 days. The FIR lodged through an application under Section 175(3) BNSS registered as Case Crime No. 127 of 2024 has ultimately resulted in submission of final report showing the allegations set out in the FIR as false. After perusal of the materials on record, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant herein has clearly exceeded his right of private defence. Further, the mere fact that the injuries suffered by the side of the applicant has not been explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to absolve the applicant of the the offence alleged. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Avtar and Others vs. State of U.P. reported in 2003 [SCC(Crl.)] 1404 in para 10 of the judgment has laid down as under: "Lastly, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants faintly submits that the injuries sustained by the accused have not been explained by the prosecution, which will affect the prosecution case. The law is now well settled on this subject that where the prosecution evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy, mere fact that injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence and consequently the whole case. As noticed above, in the instant case, the prosecution evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and admits no ambiguity."
Decision
12. In view of the above, no good ground is made out to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is accordingly rejected. 13. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad