High Court · 2025

indulged in indiscriminate firing upon the informant and one Ajeet Singh. Ajeet Singh died on the spot and the informant suffered a gun shot injury in his legs. The informant alleged that the offence was committed under instructions of a dreaded criminal Dhruv Singh@ Kundu Singh and Akhand Pratap Singh, who were threatening the informant and Ajeet Singh for the past two years.

4. During investigation, the informant reiterated the FIR version in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he did not name the applicant. The name of the applicant surfaced for the first time in the statement of co-accused Sandeep Singh. However, he also did not make any allegation of commission of any specific act by the applicant, which may amount to commission of an offence. He merely stated that the applicant was generally accompanying the other accused persons around the time of the incident.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent. The applicant's involvement in five other cases has been disclosed in para 26 of the affidavit. One of the cases was under Section 3/4 of Goonda Act relating to the year 2013. All other cases relate to year 2008 and in all of them, the applicant has been released on bail. It appears that none of the cases has been decided till date. The cases relate to Section 356 IPC; 307 IPC and 7 CLA Act; 3/25 Arms Act and 41/411 IPC.

6. The State as well as the victim have filed counter affidavits opposing the bail application and material collected during investigation has been annexed with the counter affidavits.

7. In the custodial statement of the informant, he stated that on 06.01.2021 i.e. the date of the incident, he had come from Azamgarh to Lucknow alongwith his friend Shivendra Singh and Tej Pratap Singh @ Prince by a Duster Car No. MH 48 P 8658. On the way Mahendra Pandit @ Bawarchi Guru was also taken along with them. During a phone call on the way, the co-accused Shivendra Singh had said that Ajeet would be eliminated on that day itself. After reaching Rohtas Plumeria, Tej Pratap Singh @ Prince and Bawarchi Guru were sent in the flat and the applicant and Shivendra went to Husariya in the car. Shivendra got down and went away on a motorcycle and asked the applicant to follow him slowly. When he reached near the spot of the incident near Kathauta Crossing, Shivendra Singh made a phone call and thereafter he sat in the car and asked the applicant to drive to Rohtas Plumeria. After some time, another phone call was received on Ankur's phone calling them to Avadh Bus Stand near Kamta and it was told that Jai had received a gun shot injury. They made Jai sit in the car.

8. The car number told by the applicant in his statement had been recovered in the month of January, 2021 whereas the applicant had surrendered in the month of March, 2021. The car had been identified in the CCTV footage of Rohtas Plumeria Apartments.

9. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that neither any offending article has been recovered from the applicant or on his pointing out nor has any other material come to light even prima facie indicating direct involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence. He has further submitted that one of the co-accused persons Abdur Rehan has been granted bail in the present case. He has also submitted that the applicant had himself surrendered to custody on

15.03.2021 and he is languishing in jail for almost 4 years without examination of a single witness.

10. The learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that the delay has occasioned because the accused persons kept on filing applications for discharge one after the other, due to which charges could not be framed. Although, it is not disputed that the applicant has not filed any application for discharge.

11. The learned A.G.A. as well as the learned counsel for the victim have vehemently opposed the bail application and they have submitted that the role assigned to Abdul Rehan is in no manner similar to the applicant. The bail applications of two other co-accused persons namely, Tej Pratap Singh and Akhand Pratap Singh have been rejected by this Court and even the second bail application of Akhand Pratap Singh has also been rejected.

12. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view of the fact that gun shots were fired at two persons near a busy crossing in a brazen incident; that it has been recorded in the bail rejection order of co-accused Akhand Pratap Singh, a copy whereof is available on record, that the offence was committed in an organized manner under a conspiracy, in commission whereof several persons were involved; that the detailed roles assigned to each individual in commission of the offence is a matter to be decided during the trial, and also keeping in view of the fact that none of the four cases relating to the year 2008 in which the applicant has been granted bail, a final decision could be arrived till date, there appears to be every possibility that in case the applicant is released on bail, the same may adversely affect expeditious conclusion of the trial in accordance with law, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts do not warrant exercise of discretion of this Court in favour of the applicant while granting him on bail.

13. However, as the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.03.2021 and the charges have been framed till date, it would be in the interest of justice that a direction be issued for expeditious conclusion of the trial. Accordingly, bail application of the applicant is rejected.

14. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial of Case Crime No. 15 of 2021, under Sections 302, 307, 201, 212, 120-B and 34 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and to make every endeavour to conclude the trial as early as possible. Order Date :- 7.2.2025/Raj RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

indulged in indiscriminate firing upon the informant and one Ajeet Singh. Ajeet Singh died on the spot and the informant suffered a gun shot injury in his legs. The informant alleged that the offence was committed under instructions of a dreaded criminal Dhruv Singh@ Kundu Singh and Akhand Pratap Singh, who were threatening the informant and Ajeet Singh for the past two years.

4. During investigation, the informant reiterated the FIR version in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he did not name the applicant. The name of the applicant surfaced for the first time in the statement of co-accused Sandeep Singh. However, he also did not make any allegation of commission of any specific act by the applicant, which may amount to commission of an offence. He merely stated that the applicant was generally accompanying the other accused persons around the time of the incident.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent. The applicant's involvement in five other cases has been disclosed in para 26 of the affidavit. One of the cases was under Section 3/4 of Goonda Act relating to the year 2013. All other cases relate to year 2008 and in all of them, the applicant has been released on bail. It appears that none of the cases has been decided till date. The cases relate to Section 356 IPC; 307 IPC and 7 CLA Act; 3/25 Arms Act and 41/411 IPC.

6. The State as well as the victim have filed counter affidavits opposing the bail application and material collected during investigation has been annexed with the counter affidavits.

7. In the custodial statement of the informant, he stated that on 06.01.2021 i.e. the date of the incident, he had come from Azamgarh to Lucknow alongwith his friend Shivendra Singh and Tej Pratap Singh @ Prince by a Duster Car No. MH 48 P 8658. On the way Mahendra Pandit @ Bawarchi Guru was also taken along with them. During a phone call on the way, the co-accused Shivendra Singh had said that Ajeet would be eliminated on that day itself. After reaching Rohtas Plumeria, Tej Pratap Singh @ Prince and Bawarchi Guru were sent in the flat and the applicant and Shivendra went to Husariya in the car. Shivendra got down and went away on a motorcycle and asked the applicant to follow him slowly. When he reached near the spot of the incident near Kathauta Crossing, Shivendra Singh made a phone call and thereafter he sat in the car and asked the applicant to drive to Rohtas Plumeria. After some time, another phone call was received on Ankur's phone calling them to Avadh Bus Stand near Kamta and it was told that Jai had received a gun shot injury. They made Jai sit in the car.

8. The car number told by the applicant in his statement had been recovered in the month of January, 2021 whereas the applicant had surrendered in the month of March, 2021. The car had been identified in the CCTV footage of Rohtas Plumeria Apartments.

9. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that neither any offending article has been recovered from the applicant or on his pointing out nor has any other material come to light even prima facie indicating direct involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence. He has further submitted that one of the co-accused persons Abdur Rehan has been granted bail in the present case. He has also submitted that the applicant had himself surrendered to custody on

15.03.2021 and he is languishing in jail for almost 4 years without examination of a single witness.

10. The learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that the delay has occasioned because the accused persons kept on filing applications for discharge one after the other, due to which charges could not be framed. Although, it is not disputed that the applicant has not filed any application for discharge.

11. The learned A.G.A. as well as the learned counsel for the victim have vehemently opposed the bail application and they have submitted that the role assigned to Abdul Rehan is in no manner similar to the applicant. The bail applications of two other co-accused persons namely, Tej Pratap Singh and Akhand Pratap Singh have been rejected by this Court and even the second bail application of Akhand Pratap Singh has also been rejected.

12. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view of the fact that gun shots were fired at two persons near a busy crossing in a brazen incident; that it has been recorded in the bail rejection order of co-accused Akhand Pratap Singh, a copy whereof is available on record, that the offence was committed in an organized manner under a conspiracy, in commission whereof several persons were involved; that the detailed roles assigned to each individual in commission of the offence is a matter to be decided during the trial, and also keeping in view of the fact that none of the four cases relating to the year 2008 in which the applicant has been granted bail, a final decision could be arrived till date, there appears to be every possibility that in case the applicant is released on bail, the same may adversely affect expeditious conclusion of the trial in accordance with law, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts do not warrant exercise of discretion of this Court in favour of the applicant while granting him on bail.

13. However, as the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.03.2021 and the charges have been framed till date, it would be in the interest of justice that a direction be issued for expeditious conclusion of the trial. Accordingly, bail application of the applicant is rejected.

14. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial of Case Crime No. 15 of 2021, under Sections 302, 307, 201, 212, 120-B and 34 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and to make every endeavour to conclude the trial as early as possible. Order Date :- 7.2.2025/Raj RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench