High Court · 2025

2. Heard Shri Mohd. Qureshi, holding brief of Shri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Sanjay Singh @ Rahul Singh for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.374/2023, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 307, 427 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Poora Kalandar, District Ayodhya/Faizabad, during trial.

4. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

5. It is further submitted that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and his name has surfaced in the instant case only on account of the fact that he was having friendly relationship with some co-accused persons. It is also submitted that the informant - Harsh Jaiswal is not an eye witness of the alleged crime and statement of injured - Saheb Lal Jaiswal is shown to have been recorded and he has claimed to have recognized/identified only two accused persons namely Manoj Yadav and Ravindra Pratap singh @ Mukku Singh thus the applicant has not been identified by the injured person.

6. It is also submitted that it is in the additional statement of the injured Saheb Lal Jaiswal, the name of the applicant and other co-accused persons has surfaced, however, additional statement of the injured could not be believed in view of the fact that he has not identified the applicant in his first statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and identically placed co-accused persons including those, who were named in the F.I.R., namely Anil Singh, Kavindra Narayan Yadav @ Anna Yadav have been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 22.05.2024 and 22.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.5484 of 2024 and 11363 of 2024, respectively.

7. It is next submitted that applicant is in jail in this case since 14.03.2024 and criminal history of eight cases is being alleged against the applicant, however, the same has been explained in paragraph no.2 of the supplementary affidavit filed today and he is not a previous convict, charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

8. Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and having regard to the material/evidence available against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail, but could not controvert the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and he was neither identified by injured Saheb Lal Jaiswal in his first statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., however, it was in the second statement of the injured recorded after many days of the incident, name of the applicant has surfaced. It also appears to be an admitted situation that various accused persons of the alleged crime, who were identified by the injured Sahen Lal Jaiswal in his second statement was recorded, have been granted bail by this Court, the case of the applicant appears to be on better footing than those, who have already been released on bail. Criminal history of the applicant, in the considered opinion of this Court, appears to have been sufficiently explained.

10. The facts investigated by the Investigating Officer would clearly demonstrate that the injured Saheb Lal Jaiswal and co- accused- Sachin Jaiswal are having a long standing enmity between them. Many criminal cases have been instituted against the co-accused- Sachin Jaiswal at the behest of Saheb Lal Jaiswal. It also appears to be an admitted situation that the incident is shown to have been caused by 7 persons, who had muffled their faces and in the first statement of the injured, he could only identify co-accused Manoj Yadav and Ravindra Pratap Singh @ Mukku Singh and the name of the applicant has surfaced in the additional statement of the injured. The two witnesses, namely, Rakesh Jaiswal and Rakesh Kumar, who have claimed to have overheard the conversation stated to have failed to communicate the plan to the injured person. One of the witness had stated that he attempted to make a telephone call but the call could not connect. The name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused- Manoj Yadav. Thus, the applicant could not be identified by the injured in his first statement recorded by the investigating officer and it was only in his additional statement, he has taken the name of the applicant and his complicity is also shown in the confessional statement of the co-accused Manoj Yadav, which is shown to have been obtained when he was in the custody of the police. The defence of the applicant appears to be that as his name has not surfaced in the first information report as well as in the first statement of the injured recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the reference of his name in the second statement of the injured is only on account of the previous enmity and also that the confessional statement of the Manoj Yadav may not be proved against him as the same has been obtained while he was in the custody of the police. Identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Anil Singh, Kavindra Narayan Yadav @ Anna Yadav have been granted bail by this Court and the role of the instant applicant is distinguishable from the role of accused Manoj Yadav, whose bail application has been rejected by this Court as he (Manoj Yadav) was identified by the informant in his first statement recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Charge-sheet in this case has already been filed. Applicant is in jail in this case since 14.03.2024. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

11. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed.

12. Let the accused/applicant- Sanjay Singh @ Rahul Singh involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. (ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

14. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

15. Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Anupam S/- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard Shri Mohd. Qureshi, holding brief of Shri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Sanjay Singh @ Rahul Singh for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.374/2023, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 307, 427 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Poora Kalandar, District Ayodhya/Faizabad, during trial.

4. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

5. It is further submitted that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and his name has surfaced in the instant case only on account of the fact that he was having friendly relationship with some co-accused persons. It is also submitted that the informant - Harsh Jaiswal is not an eye witness of the alleged crime and statement of injured - Saheb Lal Jaiswal is shown to have been recorded and he has claimed to have recognized/identified only two accused persons namely Manoj Yadav and Ravindra Pratap singh @ Mukku Singh thus the applicant has not been identified by the injured person.

6. It is also submitted that it is in the additional statement of the injured Saheb Lal Jaiswal, the name of the applicant and other co-accused persons has surfaced, however, additional statement of the injured could not be believed in view of the fact that he has not identified the applicant in his first statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and identically placed co-accused persons including those, who were named in the F.I.R., namely Anil Singh, Kavindra Narayan Yadav @ Anna Yadav have been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 22.05.2024 and 22.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.5484 of 2024 and 11363 of 2024, respectively.

7. It is next submitted that applicant is in jail in this case since 14.03.2024 and criminal history of eight cases is being alleged against the applicant, however, the same has been explained in paragraph no.2 of the supplementary affidavit filed today and he is not a previous convict, charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

8. Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and having regard to the material/evidence available against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail, but could not controvert the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and he was neither identified by injured Saheb Lal Jaiswal in his first statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., however, it was in the second statement of the injured recorded after many days of the incident, name of the applicant has surfaced. It also appears to be an admitted situation that various accused persons of the alleged crime, who were identified by the injured Sahen Lal Jaiswal in his second statement was recorded, have been granted bail by this Court, the case of the applicant appears to be on better footing than those, who have already been released on bail. Criminal history of the applicant, in the considered opinion of this Court, appears to have been sufficiently explained.

10. The facts investigated by the Investigating Officer would clearly demonstrate that the injured Saheb Lal Jaiswal and co- accused- Sachin Jaiswal are having a long standing enmity between them. Many criminal cases have been instituted against the co-accused- Sachin Jaiswal at the behest of Saheb Lal Jaiswal. It also appears to be an admitted situation that the incident is shown to have been caused by 7 persons, who had muffled their faces and in the first statement of the injured, he could only identify co-accused Manoj Yadav and Ravindra Pratap Singh @ Mukku Singh and the name of the applicant has surfaced in the additional statement of the injured. The two witnesses, namely, Rakesh Jaiswal and Rakesh Kumar, who have claimed to have overheard the conversation stated to have failed to communicate the plan to the injured person. One of the witness had stated that he attempted to make a telephone call but the call could not connect. The name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused- Manoj Yadav. Thus, the applicant could not be identified by the injured in his first statement recorded by the investigating officer and it was only in his additional statement, he has taken the name of the applicant and his complicity is also shown in the confessional statement of the co-accused Manoj Yadav, which is shown to have been obtained when he was in the custody of the police. The defence of the applicant appears to be that as his name has not surfaced in the first information report as well as in the first statement of the injured recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the reference of his name in the second statement of the injured is only on account of the previous enmity and also that the confessional statement of the Manoj Yadav may not be proved against him as the same has been obtained while he was in the custody of the police. Identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Anil Singh, Kavindra Narayan Yadav @ Anna Yadav have been granted bail by this Court and the role of the instant applicant is distinguishable from the role of accused Manoj Yadav, whose bail application has been rejected by this Court as he (Manoj Yadav) was identified by the informant in his first statement recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Charge-sheet in this case has already been filed. Applicant is in jail in this case since 14.03.2024. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

11. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed.

12. Let the accused/applicant- Sanjay Singh @ Rahul Singh involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. (ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

14. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

15. Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Anupam S/- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench