Ashcharya Singh v. State of U.P

1.Heard Sri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/ informant.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Abhishek Singh Alias Sarvan Singh) is languishing in jail since 06.12.2023 in Case Crime No.0522 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 308, 506, 34 &120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Purakalandar, District-Ayodhya.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) wherein the allegation to commit murder has been levelled against four named accused persons and two unknown persons.

5. Sri Shahi has stated that the informant of the F.I.R., has wrongly stated that he suffered the firearm injury, whereas the informant has not received any firearm injury, therefore, opening sentence of the F.I.R. is false and misconceived. He has further submitted that all other co-accused persons have been granted bail, as their bail orders have been annexed with the bail application and the supplementary affidavit.

6. Sri Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that while rejecting the bail of the co-accused, Shekhar Singh @ Ashcharya Singh vide order dated 12.08.2024, this Court directed the learned trial court to examine the witnesses at the earliest. However, the aforesaid co-accused, Shekhar Singh @ Ashcharya Singh, has been granted bail on 24.09.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10172 of 2024; Shekhar Singh @ Ashcharya Singh vs. State of U.P.. In compliance of the aforesaid order, out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined and only the evidence of I.O. is to be recorded.

7. Therefore, Sri Shahi has submitted that as on today all facts and relevant witnesses as well as expert witnesses have been examined, therefore, if the present applicant is released on bail, he may not be able to influence any of the witnesses. Sri Shahi has further submitted that except this case, there were criminal history of other four cases of the present applicant wherein he has been acquitted as acquittal orders of all the cases have been filed with this bail application. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

8. Sri Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance of the dictum of Apex Court rendered in re: Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 12 SCC 505 wherein the Apex Court has observed that if the material and fact witnesses have been examined, the bail of the accused persons may be considered.

9. Per contra, Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed this bail application mainly on the ground that the present applicant has been attributed the role of firing and the firearm injury was fatal which was the cause of death also. He has also submitted that the wife of the applicant tried to influence the informant, therefore, one F.I.R. was lodged against the wife of the applicant, though in such F.I.R. the Investigating Agency has filed the final report, against which the protest application has been filed which is still pending consideration. He has also submitted that the balastic report also corroborates the allegation levelled against the present applicant. However, he has not disputed the fact that all facts and relevant witnesses have been examined.

10. Learned Additional Government Advocate has also opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record as well as having regard to the dictum of Apex Court rendered in the case in re: Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra); considering the contents of the F.I.R. that the informant has suffered the firearm injury whereas the informant has not received any firearm injury; considering the fact that out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined and only the evidence of I.O. is to be recorded; all co-accused persons have been granted bail and the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

12. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

13. Let the applicant (Abhishek Singh Alias Sarvan Singh) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. . Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1.Heard Sri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/ informant.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Abhishek Singh Alias Sarvan Singh) is languishing in jail since 06.12.2023 in Case Crime No.0522 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 308, 506, 34 &120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Purakalandar, District-Ayodhya.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) wherein the allegation to commit murder has been levelled against four named accused persons and two unknown persons.

5. Sri Shahi has stated that the informant of the F.I.R., has wrongly stated that he suffered the firearm injury, whereas the informant has not received any firearm injury, therefore, opening sentence of the F.I.R. is false and misconceived. He has further submitted that all other co-accused persons have been granted bail, as their bail orders have been annexed with the bail application and the supplementary affidavit.

6. Sri Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that while rejecting the bail of the co-accused, Shekhar Singh @ Ashcharya Singh vide order dated 12.08.2024, this Court directed the learned trial court to examine the witnesses at the earliest. However, the aforesaid co-accused, Shekhar Singh @ Ashcharya Singh, has been granted bail on 24.09.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10172 of 2024; Shekhar Singh @ Ashcharya Singh vs. State of U.P.. In compliance of the aforesaid order, out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined and only the evidence of I.O. is to be recorded.

7. Therefore, Sri Shahi has submitted that as on today all facts and relevant witnesses as well as expert witnesses have been examined, therefore, if the present applicant is released on bail, he may not be able to influence any of the witnesses. Sri Shahi has further submitted that except this case, there were criminal history of other four cases of the present applicant wherein he has been acquitted as acquittal orders of all the cases have been filed with this bail application. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

8. Sri Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance of the dictum of Apex Court rendered in re: Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 12 SCC 505 wherein the Apex Court has observed that if the material and fact witnesses have been examined, the bail of the accused persons may be considered.

9. Per contra, Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed this bail application mainly on the ground that the present applicant has been attributed the role of firing and the firearm injury was fatal which was the cause of death also. He has also submitted that the wife of the applicant tried to influence the informant, therefore, one F.I.R. was lodged against the wife of the applicant, though in such F.I.R. the Investigating Agency has filed the final report, against which the protest application has been filed which is still pending consideration. He has also submitted that the balastic report also corroborates the allegation levelled against the present applicant. However, he has not disputed the fact that all facts and relevant witnesses have been examined.

10. Learned Additional Government Advocate has also opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record as well as having regard to the dictum of Apex Court rendered in the case in re: Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra); considering the contents of the F.I.R. that the informant has suffered the firearm injury whereas the informant has not received any firearm injury; considering the fact that out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined and only the evidence of I.O. is to be recorded; all co-accused persons have been granted bail and the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

12. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

13. Let the applicant (Abhishek Singh Alias Sarvan Singh) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. . Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench