Vikas Singh Sengar @ Bikki @ Sonu vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 524 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36284 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Vikas Singh Sengar @ Bikki @ Sonu
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Singh Parmar,Amrendra Pratap Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,B.N.Singh,Santosh Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

All the bail applications, arising out of same case crime number and having similar facts, are being decided by a common order.

Heard Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.N.Singh, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Vikas Singh Sengar @ Bikki @ Sonu under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 228 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Kotwali Jalaun, District Jalaun during the pendency of the trial after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by the Sessions Judge, Jalaun, vide order dated 02.08.2021.

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 19.6.2021 has been lodged under Section 147, 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C. against applicant and six others as well as two unknown persons by the mother of the deceased stating therein that on 18.6.201, her son Nausad came to her house after a long time for asking well being of his minor daughter and his family, on the same day at 11 P.M., Ashish Yadav called her son Nausad to go outside i.e. at Sengar Colony over the culvert, where the applicant and other named accused persons and unknown person, beaten the applicant with kicks and fists and hurled filthy abuses and at the same time, with intention to kill Nausad, Jitendra Yadav @ Mote Yadav fired upon the head of Nausad. On account of which, Nausad sustained injury and fell down near the culvert. After that Bajrang Bhadauriya and Amit Pratap fired in the air and fled away from the spot. The injured was carried to the Hospital by his brothers Shahbaz, Haseen and Sajeed Khan, where the doctors, looking to the seriousness of the incident, referred the injured to the Regency Hospital, Kanpur where on 19.6.2021, during treatment, the injured has died. One country made pistol has been recovered from Jitendra Yadav @ Mote Yadav. Shahbaz, Haseen and Sajeed Khan are the eye-witnesses of the incident and they can identify the culprits.

Before lodging the F.I.R in the present case, inquest of the deceased has been conducted on 19.6.2021 at 4:30 P.M. on the information of the Supervisor of Regency Hospital. Post-mortem of the deceased has been conducted on 19.6.2020 at 10:00 P.M. As per post-mortem report, one fire-arm entry and exit wound were present on the person of the deceased as well as blackening, tattoing and charring were also present around the wound. Entry wound was found on the left side of ear measuring 2.5 cm. Exit wound was found on right side of fore-head measuring 4 cm above eye-brow.

After recording the statement of first informant and Shahbaz, Haseen and Sajeed and other prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., charge-sheet has been submitted against applicant, Jitendra Yadav, Banti Yadav, Ashish Yadav and Manoj Kumar Rajak @ Manager. One named co-accused Jay Karan was exonerated during course of investigation by the Investigating Officer. The applicant was arrested on 7.7.2021.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the as per allegation of first information report and the statement of the named eye-witnesses Shahbaz, Haseen and Sajeed, main role of firing was assigned to co-accused Jitendra Yadav @ Mote Yadav. It is further submitted that except one fire-arm injury, no external injury has been found on the person of the deceased. It is further submitted that only general allegation of to be present there has been levelled against the applicant. No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the applicant. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the applicant. It is further submitted that the co-accused Ashish Yadav and Manoj Kumar Rajak @ Manager have already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 49270 of 2021 and 51911 of 2021 vide order dated 20.1.2022 and 3.3.2022 respectively. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 7.7.2021. It is lastly submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the first informant have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and they further submit that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. They further submit that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will misuse the liberty of bail.

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

(a) On 18.6.2021, deceased Naushad was called at 11:00 by Ashish, however, the incident took place on the spur of the moment, i.e., 11:20, on the same day on the culvert;

(b) The deceased has sustained one fire-arm entry and exit wound;

(c) Main role of firing was assigned to co-accused Jitendra Yadav @ Mote Yadav;

(d) No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant;

(e) Co-accused Ashish Yadav and Manoj Kumar Rajak @ Manager have already been enlarged on bail;

It is settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

Let applicant, Vikas Singh Sengar @ Bikki @ Sonu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient case, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance of law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 6.4.2022

CS/-