Allahabad High Court
Udayan Singh vs State Of U.P. on 19 August, 2015
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18141 of 2015
Applicant :- Udayan Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,K.D.Tripathi
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Supplementary affidavit as well as counter affidavit filed today in Court, which are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. as well as the informant's counsel.
Perused the record.
Submission of counsel is that the applicant was named in the F.I.R. but during investigation the investigating officer submitted final report in favour of the applicant and charge-sheet was not submitted against him. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to several statements which have been recorded by the investigating officer indicating that the applicant was not one of the assailants. Later on, when the trial began and the witnesses were examined the stand which was taken by the witnesses was not the same as was in the statements given before the investigating officer and the applicant was named during the course of trial as one of the assailants, who exhorted and also resorted to firing. Submission of the counsel is that the post mortem report of the deceased reveals that there are three injuries found on the body of the deceased. The first one is incised wound but the counsel has fairly conceded that when the doctor was examined by the police it has been clarified by doctor that this was an inadvertent error as in the same wound, not only blackening was found present but a pallet was also recovered from the same and therefore, there is no doubt about the nature of injury no. 1 and the same was definitely caused by a firearm. Further submission is that two wounds were described as lacerated wounds but there is no blackening, tattooing or charring present in either of these woulds nor is there any inversion of margins found in any of them. Further submission is that the post mortem report also does not reveal that any pallets or metals have been discovered from inside of the body, which could be ascribed to have entered into the body through either of these two lacerated wounds. Submission is that there is no doubt in the fact that the injuries no. 2 and 3, the two lacerated wounds, have been caused either by a fall or by any blunt weapon and definitely not by any firearm wound. It has also been submitted that there is specific evidence of prosecution with regard to the fact that the deceased had received gun-shot would as result of firing which was resorted to by co-accused Ranjit Dubey. Submission is that in such circumstances when specifically the firearm wound received on the body of the deceased is attributable to co-accused Ranjit Dubey, the case of the applicant stands on a different and distinguishable footing, specially keeping in view the fact that final report was also submitted in his favour by the investigating officer. It has further been submitted that the applicant has now been summoned by the court below under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and his bail applicant has been rejected by the court below after he surrendered and appeared in the court.
Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 6.5.2015 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Learned A.G.A. and the informant's counsel opposed the prayer for bail.
I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the record in the light of the same. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of evidence and specially the evidence available on record, it appears that the case of the applicant is distinguished from that of co-accused Ranjit Dubey, who is the main shooter and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant- Udayan Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 06 of 2013, u/s 302, 307, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Paschim Sharira, District- Kaushambi, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 19.8.2015
Naresh
