Allahabad High Court

Sanjay Singh Alias Seenu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 19 September, 2023

Bench: Brij Raj Singh





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:60237
 
Court No. - 27
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5605 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Alias Seenu
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sheo Prakash Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Srivastava,Ashok Kumar Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

1. This is the second bail application.

2. The first bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4444 of 2019 was rejected by Hon'ble Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan, vide order dated 07.05.2022.

3. Heard Shri Sheo Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Avinash Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. This bail application has been filed seeking release of the accused/applicantSanjay Singh Alias Seenu on bail, who is involved in Case Crime No. 302 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 404, 34, 120-B I.P.C, Police Station Baghrai, District Pratapgarh.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the First Information Report, 13 persons have been assigned the role of firing at the deceased. Till the rejection of first bail application of the applicant, the witnesses were not examined and the Court had given direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial within one year. It has been informed that four witnesses have been examined. P.W.-1 Manoj Singh, i.e. the complainant has assigned the role of firing to all the accused persons. However, P.W.-2 Dheeraj Singh @ Bauvva has assigned role of firing to the applicant, Rohit Singh and Pramod Singh. It has been submitted that the post-mortem report indicates that only single injury i.e. entry wound is found on the chest of the deceased. He further submitted that P.W.-2 has not specified the role of firing to a particular person but he has assigned the role of firing to all the three accused persons namely Pramod Singh, Rohit Singh and Sanjay Singh Alias Seenu (applicant).

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted in the second bail application, the co-accused namely Daddu Pasi Alias Krishna Kumar, Pawan Mishra @ Ram Sagar Mishra, Vivek @ Deepak Ojha, Pankaj Singh S/O Shri Surya Narayan Singh have already been granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11325 of 2022 vide order dated 03.08.2023, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2088 of 2023 vide order dated 03.07.2023, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9383 of 2023 vide order dated 24.08.2023 andCriminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9228 of 2022 vide order dated 05.09.2023 respectively. Though the bail of co-accused Rohit Singh was rejected on 27.01.2021, but till then the witnesses were not examined and their statements were not recorded by the trial Court.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this Court while granting bail to the co-accused Daddu Pasi @ Krishna Kumar the Court has taken note of the fact that the first bail of the applicant was rejected on 07.05.2022 and the trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within one year but the same was not concluded and remaining 27 witnesses are yet to be examined by the trial Court. The bail order of co-accused Daddu Pasi is as follows:-

"1. Heard Sri P.K. Singh Bisen, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Angad Kumar Vishwakarma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This is second bail application. First bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Case No. 3282(B) of 2018 has been rejected on 7.5.2022. While rejecting the first bail application this Court has observed as under :

"Before parting with, it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition, say, within a period of one year. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures as per law if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial properly. The learned trial court shall fix short dates to ensure that trial is concluded within a period of nine months in terms of Section 309 Cr.P.C"

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 4.3.2017 in Case Crime No. 302 of 2016 u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 404, 120B, 34 IPC, P.S. Baghrai, District Pratapgarh. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that about six years and five months period has passed since the applicant is in jail / judicial custody.

5. He has further submitted that despite the specific direction being issued by this Court while rejecting the first bail application on 7.5.2022 to conclude the trial within one year, about one year and three months period have passed but the trial has not been concluded till date. Out of total 27 prosecution witnesses three prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no likelihood to conclude the trial at the earliest. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712. Para 16 of the judgment is being reproduced herein below:-

"This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that one co-accused Pawan Mishra @ Ram Sagar Mishra has been granted bail by this Court on 3.7.2023 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 2089 of 2023, therefore, it has been submitted that it may be considered as a new ground as after rejection of first bail application of the applicant, the co-accused has been granted bail. So far as the criminal history of the present applicant is concerned, the present applicant has been acquitted in four cases. Presently, the trial in two criminal cases are pending before the Court.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the injured witnesses namely Sonu Singh and Dheeraj Singh whose statement have been recorded before the trial court subsequent to the rejection of first bail application have not supported the prosecution story and they have stated in their testimony that they have not seen the applicant on the place of incident.

8.The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

9. Sri Angad Kumar Vishwakarma, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that this is second bail application and no new grounds has been shown, therefore, this bail application may be rejected.

10. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the fact that the co-accused person namely, Pawan Mishra @ Ram Sagar Mishra has been granted bail by this Court on 3.7.2023 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 2089 of 2023 and the fact that the injured witnesses have stated in their statement that they have not seen the applicant at the place of incident and also considering the period of his incarceration in jail i.e. six years and five months and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future, therefore, on the principle of parity the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

11. Let the applicant Daddu Pasi Alias Krishna Kumar, involved in aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) 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 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

12. Before parting with it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures as per law if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial properly. The learned trial court shall fix short dates to ensure that trial is concluded at the earliest."

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712. Para 16 of the judgment is being reproduced herein below:-

9. Learned counsel for applicant has satisfactorily explained criminal history of the applicant in paragraph-37 of the bail application and in paragraph-11 of the rejoinder afidavit and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 06.11.2018.

10. On the other hand, Shri Avinash Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for complainant has opposed the bail of the applicant and has submitted that P.W.-2 Dheeraj has assigned role of firing to the applicant and other two co-accused. He further submitted that the case of the applicant is distinguishable and bail of co-accused Rohit Singh has been cancelled by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2021, therefore, bail of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

11. Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer of bail of the applicant and has submitted that role of firing has been assigned to the applicant therefore, his bail is liable to be rejected.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record, also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the argument of period of incarceration of 4 years and 10 months in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court inK.A. Najeeb (supra), the argument that 3 accused have been assigned role of firing as per the statement of P.W.-2, but only single injury has been received by the deceased on his chest and the same is not assigned as to who caused the said injury, the argument that other co-accused namely Daddu Pasi Alias Krishna Kumar, Pawan Mishra @ Ram Sagar Mishra, Vivek @ Deepak Ojha, Pankaj Singh S/O Shri Surya Narayan Singh have already been granted bail, the argument that P.W.-1 havs assigned role of firing to all the accused including those who have been granted bail by this Court, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

13. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant Sanjay Singh Alias Seenu be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

15. 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 in this order.

16. Before parting with it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures as per law if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial properly. The learned trial court shall fix short dates to ensure that trial is concluded at the earliest.

17. The Investigating Agency/ Police Officials are directed to provide proper safety and security to the wife and the son of the deceased, namely, Poonam Singh and Harshvardhan and their testimony be examined before the learned trial court with promptness. Further, such Investigating Agency/ Police Officials/ Superintendent of Police of the District shall ensure that such prosecution/ fact witnesses are not influenced by any accused persons including the present accused applicant.

Order Date :- 19.9.2023

DiVYa