Vijendra Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P.
2017 Latest Caselaw 4455 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R. 
 
Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2353 of 2014
 

 
Appellant :- Vijendra Singh And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ratan Singh,Narendra Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan,J.

Order in Crl. Misc. Second Bail Application No. 34132 of 2015

This second bail application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Sessions Trial No. 920 of 2013 under sections 148, 307, 149, 302, 404 IPC, Police Station Jithra, District Etah. The first bail application was rejected by another Bench of this Court on 21.07.2014.

The only submission made by the counsel is that since rejection of the bail on 21.07.2014, three years have elapsed but final hearing has not taken place and in the light of the observations made by the Court while rejecting the bail that the same was being rejected at that stage, the appellant should be released on bail.

Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

According to the facts of the case, there was previsous enmity in between appellants no. 1 and 2 and their family members on one side and the informant and his family members on other side in relation to an earlier incident of firing made upon appellant no. 2 , for which a first information report was also lodged by appellant no. 1 against the brothers and son of informant of present case and on the date fixed i.e. 05.6.2007 in said earlier criminal case, the informant and his brother had attended the court and were returning to their village during which when they reached near the agricultural field of one Indrapal at about 1.00 P.M., appellants of criminal case in question along with other persons, suddenly came in front of them and surrounded and fired gun shots upon them, as a result of which the brother of informant namely Ram Prakash received several gun shot injuries and died on the spot while the informant of criminal case in question could save his life by taking cover of road side ditch. Appellant no. 1 exhorted to snatch chain and money from the deceased Ram Prakash whereupon appellant no. 3 and one other co-accused snatched Rs. 8,000/- from the pocket of deceased Ram Prakash and also snatched the golden chain. The incident was witnessed by two other persons namely Gautam Singh and Vot Singh, who were the residents of the same village. The deceased Ram Prakash received as many as eight injuries and during the post mortem examination of the body of the deceased, two bullets from the forehead and one bullet from the chest were recovered. Appellant no. 1, 2 and 3 were arrested and country-made pistols of .315 bore and live cartridges were recovered from their possession. During the course of trial, the co-accused Suresh Veer and Om Veer were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted, but the evidence against the present appellants was found substantive, genuine and conclusive and  their guilt was found to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

It is a case in which there is no dearth of evidence available against the appellants. There is strong effective evidence available which is conclusively incriminating. Guilt of the appellant appears to have been proved as much as the same is capable of being proved. The finding of guilt given by the trial court appears at this stage to be unassailable. The first bail application has already been rejected on merits after going through the entire record and there does not appear to be any such fresh ground or new material which may persuade this Court to take a different view of the matter. The acquittal of some of the co-accused cannot be said to be a ground which must necessarily result in further acquittals of all other co-accused even though the evidence with regard to them is found to be reliable and worthy of being acted upon. The increased period of detention sometimes in some cases may be made a basis to persuade the Court to treat the same as a fresh ground to release an appellant on bail even though his earlier bail application might have been rejected by the Court. But the period of detention cannot constitute a legitimate ground to release the appellants on bail in all cases without paying due regard to the merits of the case or without paying due regard to the gravity of offence involved in the matter. In fact, the period of detention becomes relevant to release an appellant on bail on a fundamental rationale that if, and in case, the appeal is allowed then the period undergone in jail becomes impossible to compensate. This rationale may come into application in cases where the court succeeds to find some prima facie infirmities in the judgement or some such foibles in the evidence produced by the prosecution on the basis of which it may proceed to presume that there is or that there may be a reasonable prospect of the appeal being allowed after final hearing. If the nature of evidence is such which is unassailable and the quality of the judgement is such which is beyond judicial reproach and if the appellant completely failed to make out any prima facie case in his favour or to show that the judgement suffers with any such infirmities that there would be a reasonable prospect of appeal being allowed, then in such situation it shall be difficult for the court to hold that appellant should still be released on bail merely on the basis of the period of detention. In the present matter the counsel arguing the case has simply failed to make out any prima facie case in appellants' favour. He has also completely failed to place any submissions which may point out any infirmities in the judgement. Counsel has also completely failed to establish that there is at all any prospect of this appeal being allowed after final hearing. The only submission pressed forth by the counsel in order to seek release of appellants on bail is that they have spent a certain period of detention in jail. In a case of this gravity in which the nature of murder displays such kind of cruelty and in a case like this where eye witness account of murder as has been given against the appellants appears unassailable and where there is strong motive to commit the crime in question and where the post mortem report shows that the dead body was riddled with bullets, this Court does not feel persuaded to release the appellants on bail on the lone ground of period of detention undergone by them. Moreover, it may also be observed that this Court is not at all disinclined to undertake the final hearing of appeal. Appellants can always argue the matter finally if they so desire and get the final verdict about their innocence or guilt. In fact, the matter has already been expedited by this Court but the appellants did not appear to have made any use of the same and there is nothing to show that they have any inclination to argue the case finally nor is there any material to indicate that the appeal is not being heard finally by the Court even though the appellants counsel desired to do so.

In a case of this gravity, the period of detention of the applicants cannot be said to be so long drawn out which may constitute a legitimate ground enough to set them at liberty or may persuade the Court to grant them bail on that basis alone.

In the aforesaid background, the second bail application stands rejected.

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 :- 15.9.2017

Madhurima