Allahabad High Court
Gurjeevan Singh vs State Of U.P. on 29 August, 2023
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:174949
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36632 of 2023
Applicant :- Gurjeevan Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Tripathi,Rakesh Pati Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Pati Tiwari, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Gurjeevan Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 177 of 2023, under Sections 302, 504 IPC, Police Station-Puranpur, District-Pilibhit during the pendency of trial.
4. Record shows that an incident occurred on 04.04.2023. Thereafter, the dead body of deceased was recovered on 05.04.2023. Subsequent to the recovery of dead body of deceased, the proceedings of inquest (Panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted. In the opinion of witnesses of inquest (Panch witnesses), the nature of death of the deceased was said to be homicidal, which has occurred in suspicious circumstances. Thereafter, the post mortem of the body of deceased was conducted. The Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted autopsy of the body of deceased found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased:-
"1. Lacerated wound present on mid parietal region of head size 5 x 1 cm.
2. Lacerated wound present on Rt. side Chin size (i) 3 x 1 cm, (ii) 3 x 1 cm.
3. Contusion present over posterior left side Head (on cut) Heamtoma present 5 x 5 cm (areaw).
4. Rt. side face (orbital, forehead area) crushed injury present with fracture of bones (vassal bone, Zygomatic bone, frontal bone, orbitral bones etc.)"
5. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of deceased was opined as Shock and Hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injury.
6. After aforementioned proceedings had been undertaken the first informant namely Siyaram (brother of the deceased) lodged a delayed FIR dated 06.04.2023, which as registered as Case Crime No. 77 of 2023, under Sections 302, 504 IPC, Police Station-Puranpur, District-Pilibhit. In the aforesaid FIR, 2 persons namely - (1) Sukhpal Singh and (2) Jeevan @ Gurjeevan Singh have been nominated as named accused.
7. The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is to the effect that named accused forced the deceased to work in the farm of named accused on Begar. Subsequently, demand of wages was made by the deceased with the named accused which was denied by them. It is on account of above, the deceased was put to death.
8. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. He examined the first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him during the course of investigation, it was discovered that complicity of named accused Sukhpal Singh is not established in the crime in question. However, on the basis of said material, Investigating Officer opined that complicity of applicant-Gurjeevan Singh is established in the crime in question. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 05.06.2023 whereby applicant has been charge sheeted under Sections 302, 504 IPC.
9. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and therefore, there is no eye witness of the occurrence. Complicity of an accused in a case based upon circumstantial evidence has to be decided as per the law laid down by Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 (Para 152), wherein court has laid down the parameters that are required to be satisfied for inferring the guilt of an accused. However, in the present case, none of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in aforementioned judgment are satisfied against applicant up to this stage. Attention of the Court was then invited to the statement of one of the witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. namely Raju, who is also working in the farm of the named accused. As per the statement of aforesaid witness, the deceased was last seen consuming the liquor. In the light of the aforementioned evidence, the learned counsel for applicant contends that the occurrence must have taken place while the deceased was under spell of intoxication. No strong motive has emerged against applicant to commit the crime in question either.
10. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 30.04.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 4 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the cumulative strength of above, he, therefore, submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. As per the material collected by the Investigating Officer, the complicity of applicant in the crime in question stands fully established. Attention of the Court was then invited to the FIR and on basis thereof, the learned A.G.A. contends that there is no averment in the entire affidavit filed in support of bail application, contradicting the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR. He, therefore, submits that strong motive has emerged against the applicant for committing the crime in question. As such, no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant.
12. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
13. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of applicant, accusations made coupled with the fact that even though present case is a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court finds that the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR remains un-contradicted by the applicant, up to this stage, there is no such material on record to infer the innocence of applicant, strong motive has emerged against applicant for committing the crime in question inasmuch as, there is nothing on record to show that the due wages of the deceased were paid by the applicant, therefore, irrespective of the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the bail application, this Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
14. As a result, present application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.
15. It is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 29.8.2023
Vinay
