High Court · 2025

the C.B.I. has filed a complaint against 19 persons, including the applicant. The allegation against the applicant is that he was posted as an Inspector with the Police Lines, Jaunpur and he was associated with the SOG Team to make break through in Case Crime No.33 of 2021, Police Station Baksha. During investigation four suspects were brutally beaten by these police officials with common intention to extort confession. As a result two of them suffered numerous injuries. During interrogation the name of Krishna @ Pujari (the deceased) was revealed as another suspect in the snatching case. It is alleged that the applicant's name was left out of the recovery memo by the co- accused Ajay Kumar as there was no formal order regarding the applicant's association with the SOG Team, although he was involved in the investigation on the oral instructions of the Superintendent of Police for Case Crime No.42 of 2021.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. The applicant was not arrested during investigation and after his name surfaced in the charge sheet filed by the CBI before the learned trial court, he has surrendered to custody on

28.03.2023.

6. The respondent-CBI has filed a counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit. It has been stated by the CBI that the applicant has been implicated as it came to light during investigation that his mobile location established his presence in Village Baksha from 11:49:33 to 15:22:04 on 11.02.2021 and again from 18:54.23 to 21:42:54 on the same date.

7. A transcript of mobile conversation between the applicant and co-accused Ajay Kumar (Officer Incharge of Police Station Baksha) that took place at 07:26:01 on 12.02.2021 has been annexed with the counter affidavit, wherein the applicant has referred to some unfortunate incident that has already taken place. He requested the other accused person to take care of him as he very well knew the role of the applicant. The applicant further stated that he will cooperate and will not escape.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has submitted that the bail application of co-accused Parva Kumar Singh, the Officer Incharge SOG has been rejected by means of an order dated 23.03.2023, passed by this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9782 of 2022. Another co-accsued Jitendra Singh, who was driver of the police vehicle was granted bail by means of an order dated 15.02.2023 by a coordinate Bench of this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29494 of 2022, which order has been set aside by means of a judgment and order dated 12.03.2024, passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.9816 of 2023.

9. The bail application of two other co-accused persons Raj Kumar Verma and Ramkrit Yadav have been rejected by means of orders dated 06.09.2022 and 17.08.2022, passed by this court sitting at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.39462 of 2022 and 10162 of 2022 respectively.

10. All the co-accused persons whose bail applications have been rejected or the bail granted to whom has been rejected by Hon'ble Supreme court, were part of the SOG Team or were posted at Baksha Police Station and were involved in investigation of F.I.R. No.38 of 2021. The applicant was neither posted at Police Station Baksha nor was he involved in the investigation of the aforesaid F.I.R.

11. The C.B.I. alleges that the applicant was involved in the investigation of the aforesaid case under the oral orders issued by the Superintendent of Police. However, the statement of Superintendent of Police has not been recorded by the C.B.I. The C.B.I. relies upon the statement of Sri Tribhuvan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, wherein he has stated that he happened to visit Baksha Thana at about 7.00 p.m. on

11.02.2021. He met Parv Kumar Singh, Incharge SOG Jaunpur and the applicant was also present with him. He stated that the applicant was attached to the police lines and was working with SOG under the orders of Superintendent of Police. Even in this statement, there is no specific allegation as to when was the oral order passed by the Superintendent of Police and how did the aforesaid witness come to know about the oral order as he did not state that the oral order has been passed in his presence.

12. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is a police officer who has cooperated with the investigation and he was not arrested during investigation; that the charge sheet alleges involvement of the applicant in investigation of Case Crime No.42 of 2021 under oral orders of Superintendent of Police; that admittedly the applicant had not signed the recovery memo which had been signed as many as 10 police officials; that there is no evidence of any oral orders having been issued by the Superintendent of Police and the statement of the Superintendent of Police has not been recorded during investigation; that the applicant has been implicated on the basis of his mobile phone location and even as per that, the applicant was not present in Village Baksha at the time of incident, which is the intervening night of 11/12.02.2021; that the applicant is a police officer and there appears to be no reasonable apprehension of his absconding and not cooperating with the proceedings of trial; that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 28.03.2023 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

13. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

14. Let the applicant-Durgeshwar Mishra be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Ram. RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

the C.B.I. has filed a complaint against 19 persons, including the applicant. The allegation against the applicant is that he was posted as an Inspector with the Police Lines, Jaunpur and he was associated with the SOG Team to make break through in Case Crime No.33 of 2021, Police Station Baksha. During investigation four suspects were brutally beaten by these police officials with common intention to extort confession. As a result two of them suffered numerous injuries. During interrogation the name of Krishna @ Pujari (the deceased) was revealed as another suspect in the snatching case. It is alleged that the applicant's name was left out of the recovery memo by the co- accused Ajay Kumar as there was no formal order regarding the applicant's association with the SOG Team, although he was involved in the investigation on the oral instructions of the Superintendent of Police for Case Crime No.42 of 2021.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. The applicant was not arrested during investigation and after his name surfaced in the charge sheet filed by the CBI before the learned trial court, he has surrendered to custody on

28.03.2023.

6. The respondent-CBI has filed a counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit. It has been stated by the CBI that the applicant has been implicated as it came to light during investigation that his mobile location established his presence in Village Baksha from 11:49:33 to 15:22:04 on 11.02.2021 and again from 18:54.23 to 21:42:54 on the same date.

7. A transcript of mobile conversation between the applicant and co-accused Ajay Kumar (Officer Incharge of Police Station Baksha) that took place at 07:26:01 on 12.02.2021 has been annexed with the counter affidavit, wherein the applicant has referred to some unfortunate incident that has already taken place. He requested the other accused person to take care of him as he very well knew the role of the applicant. The applicant further stated that he will cooperate and will not escape.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has submitted that the bail application of co-accused Parva Kumar Singh, the Officer Incharge SOG has been rejected by means of an order dated 23.03.2023, passed by this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9782 of 2022. Another co-accsued Jitendra Singh, who was driver of the police vehicle was granted bail by means of an order dated 15.02.2023 by a coordinate Bench of this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29494 of 2022, which order has been set aside by means of a judgment and order dated 12.03.2024, passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.9816 of 2023.

9. The bail application of two other co-accused persons Raj Kumar Verma and Ramkrit Yadav have been rejected by means of orders dated 06.09.2022 and 17.08.2022, passed by this court sitting at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.39462 of 2022 and 10162 of 2022 respectively.

10. All the co-accused persons whose bail applications have been rejected or the bail granted to whom has been rejected by Hon'ble Supreme court, were part of the SOG Team or were posted at Baksha Police Station and were involved in investigation of F.I.R. No.38 of 2021. The applicant was neither posted at Police Station Baksha nor was he involved in the investigation of the aforesaid F.I.R.

11. The C.B.I. alleges that the applicant was involved in the investigation of the aforesaid case under the oral orders issued by the Superintendent of Police. However, the statement of Superintendent of Police has not been recorded by the C.B.I. The C.B.I. relies upon the statement of Sri Tribhuvan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, wherein he has stated that he happened to visit Baksha Thana at about 7.00 p.m. on

11.02.2021. He met Parv Kumar Singh, Incharge SOG Jaunpur and the applicant was also present with him. He stated that the applicant was attached to the police lines and was working with SOG under the orders of Superintendent of Police. Even in this statement, there is no specific allegation as to when was the oral order passed by the Superintendent of Police and how did the aforesaid witness come to know about the oral order as he did not state that the oral order has been passed in his presence.

12. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is a police officer who has cooperated with the investigation and he was not arrested during investigation; that the charge sheet alleges involvement of the applicant in investigation of Case Crime No.42 of 2021 under oral orders of Superintendent of Police; that admittedly the applicant had not signed the recovery memo which had been signed as many as 10 police officials; that there is no evidence of any oral orders having been issued by the Superintendent of Police and the statement of the Superintendent of Police has not been recorded during investigation; that the applicant has been implicated on the basis of his mobile phone location and even as per that, the applicant was not present in Village Baksha at the time of incident, which is the intervening night of 11/12.02.2021; that the applicant is a police officer and there appears to be no reasonable apprehension of his absconding and not cooperating with the proceedings of trial; that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 28.03.2023 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

13. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

14. Let the applicant-Durgeshwar Mishra be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Ram. RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench