Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Singh @ Jagdamba Singh vs State Of U.P. on 18 January, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35367 of 2020
Applicant :- Pankaj Singh @ Jagdamba Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sriprakash Rai,Rishi Kant Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. Heard Sri Prateek Rai, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. This is the second bail application filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.21 of 2019, under Sections 302, 120B of IPC and Sections 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Dhanapur, District Chandauli, during the pendency of trial. His first bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Mr. (Retd.) Justice Aniruddha Singh vide order dated 1.10.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41419 of 2019.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with co-accused Mohit Singh Alias Rinku, who has been released on bail by another Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9188 of 2020 vide order dated 30.08.2022. Since the case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused who has already been released on bail, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no evidence whatsoever against the applicant supported by any eye witness.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the only evidence is the confessional statement of the applicant and the co-accused person before the police personnel which is not admissible in law. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance on paras-19 and 20 of the judgement passed by Apex Court in Venkatesh alias Chandra Vs. State of Karnataka AIR OnLine 2022 SC 595. The relevant paras-19 & 20 of the said judgement read as under:-
"19. We must observe that we have repeatedly found a tendency on part of the Prosecuting Agency in getting the entire statement recorded rather than only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery of facts. In the process, a confession of an accused which is otherwise hit by the principles of Evidence Act finds its place on record. Such kind of statements may have a direct tendency to influence and prejudice the mind of the Court. This practice must immediately be stopped. In the present case, the Trial Court not only extracted the entire statements but also relied upon them.
20. The other disturbing feature that we have noticed is that voluntary statements of the appellants were recorded on a DVD which was played in Court and formed the basis of the judgment of the Trial Court as is noticeable from paragraph Nos.34 and 35 of its judgment. Such a statement is again in the nature of a confession to a Police Officer and is completely hit by the principles of Evidence Act If at all the accused were desirous of making confessions, the Investigating Machinery could have facilitated recording of confession by producing them before a Magistrate for appropriate action in terms of Section 164 of the Code. Any departure from that course is not acceptable and cannot be recognized and taken on record as evidence. The Trial Court erred in exhibiting those DVD statement Exh.P-25 to 28. As a matter of fact, it went further in relying upon them while concluding the matter on the issue of conviction."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that a false recovery of rifle has been planted upon the applicant and the police has not even sent it to Ballistics expert for analysis. This also goes against the prosecution. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.06.2019 deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, stage of trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for releasing the applicant on bail.
8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Pankaj Singh @ Jagdamba Singh involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 18.1.2023
Siddhant
