Allahabad High Court
Sachin Dedha @ Sachin Kumar vs State Of U P on 3 August, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25146 of 2021
Applicant :- Sachin Dedha @ Sachin Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U P
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Ojha
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. S.K. Upadhyay holding brief of Mr. Anil Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sachin Dedha @ Sachin Kumar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1055 of 2020, under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 IPC, police station Loni, district Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.
In short compass the facts giving rise to the present case are that an FIR was lodged by the informant-Navneet, son of Rajesh Chawda, resident of Greep Society B-12 S.L.F, Flat No. 001, Ved Vihar, police station Loni at Case Crime No. 1055 of 2020, under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 IPC, police station Loni, district Ghaziabad to the effect that on 05.12.2020 at about 9.00 in the night some altercation took place between the Informant-Navneet and his brother Akash on one side and his neighbour Sonu Dedha on the other. In the meantime, Sachin Dedha @ Sachin Kumar (present applicant) and one Anuj Giri also came there. However, they later on left the place by extending threat. On the same day at about 11.00 in the night the co-accused, Sonu Dedha and the present applicant, Sachin Dedha @ Sachin Kumar armed with country made pistol came to the house of the informant and with an intention to kill, fired at his father, who was standing in the balcony of his house. The father of the informant has sustained serious injuries, and thereafter, while he was being taken to Jagmohan Hospital, he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with some ulterior motive. No such occurrence took place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. In fact Sumit Dey has hosted a party before his marriage and at that time some quarrel took place between the co-accused, Sonu Dedha, brother of the present applicant, Anuj Giri and the informant, in which co-accused, Anuj Giri got a injury on his leg. Thereafter, applicant has been implicated in the present case though he was not present at the spot. There is no motive against the applicant. There was no source of light at the place of occurrence, therefore, it was not possible for anyone to identify the assailants. No specific allegation has been made against the applicant. There is no recovery of alleged weapon from the possession of the applicant. The statement given by the informant is false and concocted. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history, the averment in this regard has been mentioned in paragraph No. 10 of the bail application. The co-accused Anuj Giri has also been released on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.1.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4430 of 2021. The applicant is entitled to be released on bail as he is languishing in jail since 8.12.2020.
Per contra learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the first information report. It is also submitted that there is specific allegation of making fire shot over the deceased by the applicant and co-accused, Sonu Dedha. It is also pointed out that in the post-mortem examination report, two entry and one exit wound were found on the body of the deceased and the cause of death is shock and hommerhage due to ante mortem gun shot injury. It is also pointed out that one bullet was recovered from the liver of the deceased. The injuries shown in the post-mortem examination report are corroborated with the prosecution case. In the bail order of co-accused, Anuj Giri, it has been specifically observed that his case is distinguishable from the case of other co-accused, Sonu Dedha and Sachin Dedha @ Sachin Kumar, the applicant, as role of firing has been assigned to them. The applicant has a criminal history of one case being case crime No. 466 of 2021, under Sections 386 and 507 IPC, police station Loni, district Ghaziabad, whereas co-accused Anuj Giri has no criminal history, therefore benefit of bail order of co-accused, Anuj Giri cannot be given to the present applicant.
Learned A.G.A. also submits that in view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2015) 3 SCC 527 the criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be ignored while deciding bail application, discretionary powers of Courts to grant bail must be exercised in a judicious manner in case of a habitual offender, who should not be enlarged on bail merely on the ground of parity, if other accused in the case were granted bail.
Having heard the argument of learned counsel for the parties I find that the main role of firing on the deceased has been assigned to the applicant and his brother Sonu Dedha, which is corroborated from the injuries mentioned in the post mortem examination report. The applicant has not come up before this Court with clean hands, because in paragraph No. 10 of the bail applicant it has been mentioned that he has no criminal history, whereas applicant has a criminal history of one case being case crime No. 466 of 2021. There is no material on record to presume that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.So far as plea of alibi, as argued on behalf of the applicant is concerned, the same is a matter matter of trial.
Considering the involvement of the applicant and role assigned to him the F.I.R., gravity of offence of this case as well as Case Crime No. 0466 of 2021 against the applicant, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail, as the offence in question is heinous in nature.
Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 3.8.2021
Sumaira
