High Court · 2025

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Srivastava,Nikhil Kumar,Prashant Kanha,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishek Tiwari,G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Nikhil Kumar and Sri A.C. Srivastava, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Amit Tyagi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.668 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, 34 IPC, registered at P.S. Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.

4. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma, J. vide order dated 20.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8201 of 2021. The said order reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for complain as well as learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. Facts in brief are that on 25.08.2020 an F.I.R. was lodged by informant Jitendra Kumar that on 24.8.2020 at about 7.20 a.m., his son Akshay Kumar was taken away from his house by Ashwani to backside of the lane and started conversation. In the meantime, Vikas, Sappu Gurjar, Amit @ Chuhia and Aditya @ Basu caused the murder of Akshay Kumar by shooting. This incident was caused in furtherance of conspiracy made by Smt. Rubi, Dr. Devendra Shiway and Ashish. During investigation, name of applicant was brought into light as master mind conspirator. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was not named in the F.I.R. The name of applicant was brought into light on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. There is no any evidence on record to indicate the involvement of applicant in conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased. During investigation, co-accused Ashwani was arrested by the police and in his confessional statement complicity of the applicant has been disclosed with other co-accused persons. The implication of applicant in the present case is wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. He was arrested by the police on 20.11.2020 and false recovery of country-made pistol 315 bore with two live cartridges have been shown. He has been languishing in jail since 20.11.2020. Criminal history of applicant has been explained. Co-accused Hani Tyagi has already been enlarged on bail. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is master mind conspirator. He was the person who made arrangement of shooters. In C.C.T.V. footage, transaction of money among the culprits have also been detected. There was active involvement of applicant in commission of this incident. There is long criminal history of 18 cases against the applicant which is related to offences of grave nature and history sheet no. 60-A is also at police station Muradnagar. He is also a gangster. The bail applications of co-accused Smt. Aruna, Deepak @ Chintu and Vikas have also been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He was arrested by the police and from his possession country-made pistol 315 bore and two live cartridges were recovered. The case of co-accused Hani Tyani was not identical to this applicant as there was no any criminal history against him, therefore, applicant is not entitled for bail. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, gravity of offence, long criminal antecedent of applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. Hence the bail application of applicant Amit Tyagi involved in Case Crime No. 668 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, 34 IPC, P.S. Modinagar, District Ghaziabad is hereby rejected."

5. The present bail application was subsequently released by the said Hon'ble Court vide order dated 12.8.2024. The matter was then nominated to this Bench vide order dated 16.8.2024 passed by Hon'ble The Chief Justice.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the rejection of the first bail application was on the grounds that there is a C.C.T.V. footage implicating the applicant and other accused persons in the matter, the bail application of co-accused has been rejected and further that the applicant has criminal history. It is further submitted while placing para 16 of the affidavit in support of bail application that there is no C.C.T.V. footage which has been filed before the trial court and further that no witness in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated about any C.C.T.V. footage. It is next argued that bail applications of co-accused Deepak @ Chintu, Smt. Aruna, Vikash, Aditya @ Vasu and Ujjwal Sharma @ Golu @ Goldee were rejected by this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 1.7.2021, 24.8.2021, 6.10.2021, 11.10.2022 and 31.1.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.6863 of 2021, 21316 of 2021, 13023 of 2021, 4205 of 2021 and 30959 of 2021 respectively. Subsequently this Hon'ble Court allowed the second bail applications of Aditya @ Vasu, Deepak @ Chintu, Ujjwal Sharma @ Golu @ Goldee, Vikash and Aswani vide orders dated 6.6.2023, 19.9.2023, 16.10.2023, 12.3.2024 and 9.5.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.22463 of 2023, 54463 of 2021, 43906 of 2023, 16539 of 2023 and 47497 of 2023 respectively. It is next submitted that the applicant is reported to be involved in some criminal cases, details of which were initially given in para no.15 of the affidavit in support of bail application wherein there was a disclosure and explanation of 14 cases against him but the same was not full disclosure and explanation and thus in the rejoinder affidavit dated 20.4.2025 in para 4 of the same, there is a disclosure and explanation of 21 criminal cases against him. It is submitted that in some of the cases, there has been acquittal recorded in favour of the applicant whereas in other cases, the applicant is on bail. In one case, the proceedings were dropped by the S.D.M concerned since they were under Section 110 Cr.P.C. and it had lived its life. It is submitted that in the trial there are 46 witnesses in the charge sheet out of whom only 8 witnesses have been examined till date and thus the trial will take time. The applicant is in jail since 20.10.2020.

7. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the first informant has submitted that the applicant is a hardened criminal and is involved in as many as 21 criminal cases apart from the present case which have been disclosed in para 3 of his counter affidavit dated 18.2.2025. Even there is a history-sheet opened against the applicant being History Sheet No.60-A at Police Station Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad. It is further submitted that there are six cases against the applicant under Section 302 IPC and one case under Section 307 IPC and further three cases under the Gangsters Act. The same would go to show that he is a hardened criminal. It is submitted that the present case is also a case under Section 302 IPC and thus involvement of the applicant in this matter goes to show that there is repeated acts of the applicant and involvement in case of the same nature. It is further submitted that as per the calendar submitted by the prosecution regarding the list of witnesses proposed to be examined by the trial court, the trial is at the verge of completion inasmuch as there were two Investigating Officers apart from the witnesses of fact out of whom one Investigating Officer has been examined whereas the testimony of other Investigating Officer is being recorded and as such the trial is at an advance stage and nearing completion and release of the applicant at this stage may have an adverse effect on the trial. It is further submitted that although in para 21 of the counter affidavit, the contents of para 16 of the affidavit with regards to the C.C.T.V. footage and other pleading has been stated to be not correct but the fact remains that one C.C.T.V. footage has been collected by the Investigating Officer which has been made part of the case diary by him. It is submitted that the first bail of the applicant was rejected on merits by a detailed order by another Bench of this Court and there is no fresh and new ground in bail and as such the same be dismissed. Even otherwise there has been concealment of relevant and material fact by the applicant before the Court inasmuch as initially he had disclosed only 15 criminal cases against him in para 15 of the affidavit in support of bail application but once in the counter affidavit there was disclosure of 21 criminal cases against him then the same were replied to and explained in the rejoinder affidavit. The said fact is a relevant and material concealment also before the Court.

8. Learned counsel for the State also opposed the prayer for bail vehemently and submitted that the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant are reiterated by him. It is further submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by another Bench of this Court. The applicant is a hardened criminal and involved in 21 criminal cases and the nature of the cases go to show that they are serious cases. It is further submitted that a C.C.T.V. footage has been collected and made part of the investigation. The same has been made part of the case diary and investigation through Case Diary No.35 dated 12.10.2020 in which at serial no.6 with regards to the major task performed, the Investigating Officer states that the informant Jitendra Kumar and witness Shubham identified the accused from the C.C.T.V. footage, the said C.C.T.V footage was then taken and sealed and made part of the said case diary. It is submitted that as such the averment in para no.16 of the affidavit in support of bail application, that there is no C.C.T.V. footage is incorrect. The bail application be thus rejected.

9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by another Bench of this Court on merits. The applicant is a hardened criminal having 21 criminal cases against him which are of serious nature. Even a history-sheet has been opened against him at the concerned police station. Initially in the bail application, there was disclosure of only 14 criminal cases stated to be cases of his involvement but after the disclosure of the said 21 criminal cases in the counter affidavit, explanation was then tendered in the rejoinder affidavit. Thus there had been concealment of criminal history by the applicant. The nature of cases of involvement of the applicant go to show that they are cases of serious nature. The trial is at an advance stage. There is no fresh and new ground made out for bail.

10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Gaurav Kuls (Samit Gopal, J.) GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Srivastava,Nikhil Kumar,Prashant Kanha,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishek Tiwari,G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Nikhil Kumar and Sri A.C. Srivastava, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Amit Tyagi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.668 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, 34 IPC, registered at P.S. Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.

4. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma, J. vide order dated 20.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8201 of 2021. The said order reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for complain as well as learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. Facts in brief are that on 25.08.2020 an F.I.R. was lodged by informant Jitendra Kumar that on 24.8.2020 at about 7.20 a.m., his son Akshay Kumar was taken away from his house by Ashwani to backside of the lane and started conversation. In the meantime, Vikas, Sappu Gurjar, Amit @ Chuhia and Aditya @ Basu caused the murder of Akshay Kumar by shooting. This incident was caused in furtherance of conspiracy made by Smt. Rubi, Dr. Devendra Shiway and Ashish. During investigation, name of applicant was brought into light as master mind conspirator. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was not named in the F.I.R. The name of applicant was brought into light on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. There is no any evidence on record to indicate the involvement of applicant in conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased. During investigation, co-accused Ashwani was arrested by the police and in his confessional statement complicity of the applicant has been disclosed with other co-accused persons. The implication of applicant in the present case is wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. He was arrested by the police on 20.11.2020 and false recovery of country-made pistol 315 bore with two live cartridges have been shown. He has been languishing in jail since 20.11.2020. Criminal history of applicant has been explained. Co-accused Hani Tyagi has already been enlarged on bail. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is master mind conspirator. He was the person who made arrangement of shooters. In C.C.T.V. footage, transaction of money among the culprits have also been detected. There was active involvement of applicant in commission of this incident. There is long criminal history of 18 cases against the applicant which is related to offences of grave nature and history sheet no. 60-A is also at police station Muradnagar. He is also a gangster. The bail applications of co-accused Smt. Aruna, Deepak @ Chintu and Vikas have also been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He was arrested by the police and from his possession country-made pistol 315 bore and two live cartridges were recovered. The case of co-accused Hani Tyani was not identical to this applicant as there was no any criminal history against him, therefore, applicant is not entitled for bail. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, gravity of offence, long criminal antecedent of applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. Hence the bail application of applicant Amit Tyagi involved in Case Crime No. 668 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, 34 IPC, P.S. Modinagar, District Ghaziabad is hereby rejected."

5. The present bail application was subsequently released by the said Hon'ble Court vide order dated 12.8.2024. The matter was then nominated to this Bench vide order dated 16.8.2024 passed by Hon'ble The Chief Justice.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the rejection of the first bail application was on the grounds that there is a C.C.T.V. footage implicating the applicant and other accused persons in the matter, the bail application of co-accused has been rejected and further that the applicant has criminal history. It is further submitted while placing para 16 of the affidavit in support of bail application that there is no C.C.T.V. footage which has been filed before the trial court and further that no witness in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated about any C.C.T.V. footage. It is next argued that bail applications of co-accused Deepak @ Chintu, Smt. Aruna, Vikash, Aditya @ Vasu and Ujjwal Sharma @ Golu @ Goldee were rejected by this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 1.7.2021, 24.8.2021, 6.10.2021, 11.10.2022 and 31.1.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.6863 of 2021, 21316 of 2021, 13023 of 2021, 4205 of 2021 and 30959 of 2021 respectively. Subsequently this Hon'ble Court allowed the second bail applications of Aditya @ Vasu, Deepak @ Chintu, Ujjwal Sharma @ Golu @ Goldee, Vikash and Aswani vide orders dated 6.6.2023, 19.9.2023, 16.10.2023, 12.3.2024 and 9.5.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.22463 of 2023, 54463 of 2021, 43906 of 2023, 16539 of 2023 and 47497 of 2023 respectively. It is next submitted that the applicant is reported to be involved in some criminal cases, details of which were initially given in para no.15 of the affidavit in support of bail application wherein there was a disclosure and explanation of 14 cases against him but the same was not full disclosure and explanation and thus in the rejoinder affidavit dated 20.4.2025 in para 4 of the same, there is a disclosure and explanation of 21 criminal cases against him. It is submitted that in some of the cases, there has been acquittal recorded in favour of the applicant whereas in other cases, the applicant is on bail. In one case, the proceedings were dropped by the S.D.M concerned since they were under Section 110 Cr.P.C. and it had lived its life. It is submitted that in the trial there are 46 witnesses in the charge sheet out of whom only 8 witnesses have been examined till date and thus the trial will take time. The applicant is in jail since 20.10.2020.

7. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the first informant has submitted that the applicant is a hardened criminal and is involved in as many as 21 criminal cases apart from the present case which have been disclosed in para 3 of his counter affidavit dated 18.2.2025. Even there is a history-sheet opened against the applicant being History Sheet No.60-A at Police Station Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad. It is further submitted that there are six cases against the applicant under Section 302 IPC and one case under Section 307 IPC and further three cases under the Gangsters Act. The same would go to show that he is a hardened criminal. It is submitted that the present case is also a case under Section 302 IPC and thus involvement of the applicant in this matter goes to show that there is repeated acts of the applicant and involvement in case of the same nature. It is further submitted that as per the calendar submitted by the prosecution regarding the list of witnesses proposed to be examined by the trial court, the trial is at the verge of completion inasmuch as there were two Investigating Officers apart from the witnesses of fact out of whom one Investigating Officer has been examined whereas the testimony of other Investigating Officer is being recorded and as such the trial is at an advance stage and nearing completion and release of the applicant at this stage may have an adverse effect on the trial. It is further submitted that although in para 21 of the counter affidavit, the contents of para 16 of the affidavit with regards to the C.C.T.V. footage and other pleading has been stated to be not correct but the fact remains that one C.C.T.V. footage has been collected by the Investigating Officer which has been made part of the case diary by him. It is submitted that the first bail of the applicant was rejected on merits by a detailed order by another Bench of this Court and there is no fresh and new ground in bail and as such the same be dismissed. Even otherwise there has been concealment of relevant and material fact by the applicant before the Court inasmuch as initially he had disclosed only 15 criminal cases against him in para 15 of the affidavit in support of bail application but once in the counter affidavit there was disclosure of 21 criminal cases against him then the same were replied to and explained in the rejoinder affidavit. The said fact is a relevant and material concealment also before the Court.

8. Learned counsel for the State also opposed the prayer for bail vehemently and submitted that the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant are reiterated by him. It is further submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by another Bench of this Court. The applicant is a hardened criminal and involved in 21 criminal cases and the nature of the cases go to show that they are serious cases. It is further submitted that a C.C.T.V. footage has been collected and made part of the investigation. The same has been made part of the case diary and investigation through Case Diary No.35 dated 12.10.2020 in which at serial no.6 with regards to the major task performed, the Investigating Officer states that the informant Jitendra Kumar and witness Shubham identified the accused from the C.C.T.V. footage, the said C.C.T.V footage was then taken and sealed and made part of the said case diary. It is submitted that as such the averment in para no.16 of the affidavit in support of bail application, that there is no C.C.T.V. footage is incorrect. The bail application be thus rejected.

9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by another Bench of this Court on merits. The applicant is a hardened criminal having 21 criminal cases against him which are of serious nature. Even a history-sheet has been opened against him at the concerned police station. Initially in the bail application, there was disclosure of only 14 criminal cases stated to be cases of his involvement but after the disclosure of the said 21 criminal cases in the counter affidavit, explanation was then tendered in the rejoinder affidavit. Thus there had been concealment of criminal history by the applicant. The nature of cases of involvement of the applicant go to show that they are cases of serious nature. The trial is at an advance stage. There is no fresh and new ground made out for bail.

10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Gaurav Kuls (Samit Gopal, J.) GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad