Jai Prakash Singh vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 1406 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 84
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51981 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Jai Prakash Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Singh,Satyawan Shahi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajneesh Kumar Upadhyay
 

 
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajneesh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.

2. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.154 of 2001, under Sections 147,323,504, 506 and 364 IPC, Police Station Bahariyabad, District Ghazipur during pendency of the trial.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 25.11.2019 with the allegation that on 25.9.2021 applicant and two others forcibly kidnapped the son of informant after entering in his house due to election rivalry and they badly beaten him and this fact was revealed to informant through a viral video.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated by informant in the present matter after two months.

5. He next submits that the alleged incident is said to have been taken place on 25.9.2021 but FIR was lodged after two months, i.e., on 25.11.2021 and therefore, this inordinate delay in lodging the FIR itself shows that the entire prosecution case is false. He further submits that FIR was lodged on the basis of a video clip but neither in the FIR nor during investigation the date of video clip could be ascertained. He further submits that during investigation it could not be revealed about the source of the alleged video clip.

6. He next submits that on the basis of such video clip, applicant made accused in the present matter and there is no certificate by any competent authority with regard to genuineness of the video clip and alleged video clip is not admissible.

7. He further submits that during investigation the Investigating Officer perused the video clip and noted the same in the case diary which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the present application. He further submits that from the perusal of the video clip the Investigating Officer noted that number of persons were assaulting injured but without any weapon and in the video clip it is seen that applicant was sitting on the chair, therefore, it appears, applicant did not participate to make any assault upon the injured.

8. He further submits that in fact injured Manish indulged in number of incident of theft and he on 21/22.9.2021 committed theft from the shop of one Ajay Singh and after arrest he was beaten by the villagers and in this regard on 3.10.2021 Ajay Singh also lodged an FIR against him at Case Crime No. 145 of 2021, under Section 457, 380 and 411 IPC and his family members admitted him in the Hospital and applicant is having no concern with the injury sustained by injured Manish and he was sustained injuries due to the reason that he was beaten by the villagers but in spite of that due to previous enmity applicant was implicated in the present matter after two months.

9. He further submits that although on the record no legible copy of the injury report of injured Manish is available but from the record it appears that applicant was admitted in GMC and Super Facility Hospital, Azamgarh on 27.9.2021 and was discharged on 28.9.2021 and from the discharge slip of the Hospital, which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit. It appears that as per final diagnosis of the Hospital, he was beaten by Lalthi and this fact completely belies the prosecution version as from the video is not reflected that applicant and co-accused made assault through lathies and this fact clearly suggests that the alleged video clip is fake one and no reliance can be placed on such video clip at this stage.

10. He further submits that two accused persons, namely, Ravi Maurya, who was also nominated in the FIR he has already been released on bail by learned Sessions Judge itself along with co-accused Pankaj vide order dated 16.4.2022.

11. He further submits that although applicant is having criminal history of 11 other cases but out of 11 cases, four cases were of Section 110 Cr.P.C. and three cases were of Goondas Act and other three cases were minor offences and in one case of Section 302 IPC applicant was convicted and he has been released on bail by this Court and appeal filed by applicant is still pending. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 2020 and submits that only on the basis of criminal history a person should not be denied bail.

12. He further submits that although applicant is a convicted person but as his implication in the present matter appears to be false, therefore, merely on the ground of his previous conviction his bail application should not be dismissed.

13. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the video clip the complicity of applicant was revealed and in the statement injured stated that applicant made assault along with other co-accused persons and from the video clip it appears that he also participated in the assault.

14. Learned counsel for the informant further submits that applicant is a hardened criminal and he has criminal history and he is also convicted in a case under Section 302 IPC and, therefore, considering the nature of allegation and evidence of video clip and backgorund of the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

16. FIR of the present case was lodged after two months and in the FIR it is alleged that after receiving the video clip it revealed that applicant and two accused persons were made assault and, therefore, informant lodged FIR but from the perusal of the video clip it appears that applicant was sitting on the chair and he did not participate in the assault and further no date of the video clip is mentioned and even during investigation the Investigating Officer could not ascertained the date and source of the video clip and further in the FIR it is stated that applicant along with two others forcibly abducted the son of informant, i.e., injured but in spite of that FIR was not lodged immediately and it was lodged after two months. There is no evidence on record that from the date of incident, i.e., 25.9.2021 to 25.11.2021 , i.e., date of lodging of FIR how in between video clip was procured by the informant.

17. Further, from the record it reflects that injured Manish was made accused by one Ajay Singh with regard to commit theft and on 3.10.2021 he was arrested and he was released on bail on 26.9.2021. It appears that after release on bail injured did not lodge the FIR and the FIR was lodged by his father on 25.11.2021, i.e., after about a month from the bail order dated 26.10.2021 and from the perusal of the FIR it appears that informant after perusal of the video clip arrived at the Hospital and thereafter injured was admitted to the Hospital in Azamgarh. Therefore, it appears that after that applicant was arrested in the case of theft but his father also did not lodge FIR even after receiving of the alleged video clip. .

18. Although applicant is a convicted person but merely on the basis that he was convicted earlier, in my view, the bail application of applicant should not be rejected if otherwise case of bail is made out.

19. As in the case at hand, entire prosecution version appears to be highly doubtful and applicant in the present matter is in jail since 31.8.2022, therefore, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

20. In the light of discussions made above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

21. Let the applicant-Jai Prakash Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

22. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

Order Date :- 13.1.2023

SKM