Allahabad High Court
Anjani Kumar Shukla Alias Radhey ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 28 November, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3627 of 2022
Applicant :- Anjani Kumar Shukla Alias Radhey (Second Bail)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko
Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sheo Prakash Singh
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Praveen Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, Mr. Sheo Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, as well as learned Additional Government Advocate on this 2nd application for bail and gone through the entire record.
2. By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.0406 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 188 IPC read with Section 27/30 Arms Act lodged at Police Station Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh.
3. Allegations in the FIR are that the complainant gave an advance of Rs. 3 Lac to co-accused, Sarvesh Tiwari alias Sahab Tiwari, resident of village Poore Tulai Majhila, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Pratapgarh to purchase a plot of land in Marutnagar (Barachha); later on, it was discovered that the land, which was shown to the complainant, was not clear and there was a dispute in respect of ownership of the said land; the complainant could know that the said land reclaimed from the River Sai; the complainant having found that the land was not in the ownership of the co-accused, Sarvesh Tiwari, but it was reclaimed land from the bank of the River Sai, he started demanding his advance back; co-accused, Sarvesh Tiwari was avoiding the complainant as he did not want to give the money back taken by him as advance for the plot of land which was promised by him to the complainant; on 08.05.2020, at around 11 a.m., co-accused, Sarvesh Tiwari called the complainant to Marutnagar where the plot of land was situated on the pretext of giving money back taken by him as advance; the complainant with his brother, Ram Prasad Pandey, Subash Saini and Surendra Tiwari went to Marutnagar where the plot was situated.
4. It was said that the present accused-applicant and co-accused, Sarvesh Tiwari alias Sahab Tiwari and others, named in the FIR, along with 2-3 unknown persons were present on the plot having armed in their hands; when the complainant reached there and sat on chair kept there, the accused-applicant and co-accused on exhortation started firing at the complainant and his other persons, who had accompanied him to the plot of land as a result of firing from the accused's side (present accused-applicant), Ram Prasad Pandey fell down and complainant and other persons accompanying him also received firearm injuries; the brother of the complainant, Ram Prasad Pandey was brought to the district hospital and from the district hospital he was referred to Prayagraj where he died on the same day at Swaroop Rani Hosital.
5. This Court vide order dated 16.03.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1694 of 2021 enlarged the accused-applicant on bail.
6. The said bail order came to be challenged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court vide detailed judgment and order dated 11.12.2021 set-aside the order enlarging the accused-applicant on bail.
7. After the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set-aside the order of this Court granting bail to the accused-applicant, the present application has been filed, which is second application for bail.
8. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has admitted that there is no changed circumstance from the date when the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set-aside the order granting bail to the accused-applicant. However, it has been submitted that the accused-applicant has also received injuries and there was no explanation regarding the injuries caused to the accused side. Looking to the long incarceration of the accused-applicant, who is in jail since 13.01.2022, this Court may enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.
9. On the other hand Mr. B.P. Singh, learned A.G.A., and Mr. Sheo Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, have opposed the bail and submitted that the accused-applicant and co-accused, after having called the complainant and deceased on pretext of giving the advance money back, had fired on them with an intention to kill as a result thereof the brother of the complainant died and complainant and others had received firearm injuries. They have also submitted that once the Supreme Court has cancelled/rejected bail prayer of the accused-applicant which was granted by this Court, until & unless there is changed circumstance, this Court should not entertain the bail application of the accused-applicant. It has also been submitted that this Court has rejected bail applications of co-accused, Sarvesh Tiwari, Anand Tiwari alias Vivek and Ravi Mishra and role assigned to them is similar/identical to that of the present accused-applicant.
10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. Second application for bail can be entertained if there is a changed circumstance; the trial is proceeding on day-to-day basis in compliance of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court; the Supreme Court has cancelled/rejected bail plea of the accused-applicant, considering the gravity of offence, accusation and other facts & circumstances; bail applications of said co-accused have already been rejected by this Court and there is no changed circumstance to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.
12. In view thereof, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.
13. REJECTED.
[D.K. Singh, J.]
Order Date :- 28.11.2022
MVS/-
