Sonu Shakya vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 16001 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sonu Shakya vs State Of U.P. on 8 May, 2024

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:83660
 
Court No. - 77
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15069 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Sonu Shakya
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Chaube
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Om Prakash Chaube, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Sonu Shakya, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 184 of 2022, under Sections 302, 397, 34, 411 IPC, Police Station- Dannahar, District- Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial.

4. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court for want of prosecution vide dated 16.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10644 of 2023 (Sonu Shakya Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereinunder:-

"1. Case called out in revised list.

2. No one appears on behalf of applicant to press this application for bail.

3. Learned A.G.A. for State is present.

4. As no one appears on behalf of applicant to press this application for bail, it is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution."

5. Learned counsel for applicant contends that co-accused Ratanveer Prajapati has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11390 of 2023 (Ratanveer Prajapati Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereinunder:-

"??????? ??????? ???????? ????? ????????? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? 184/2022, ???????? ???? 302, 397, 411, 34 ?????????, ???? ????????, ???? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ???

????? ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ?????

????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??, ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ?????????????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? 161 ?????????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???, ???? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ?????????? ? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ??? 26.07.2022 ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????

??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ??, ????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ? ????? ????

????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ???????????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???????????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???, ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ???

??? ??? ?? ???-??? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ???-???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????

1. ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ?? ??? ????????? ???? ??????

2. ????? ??????? ????????? ? ??????? ? ??????????? ?? ???????/???????? ?????

3. ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?????, ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ??????

4. ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?????????? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ? ??? ??????? ????? ??????

5. ????? ????????? ?? ?????????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?????????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?????, ????? ???? ?????? ???????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????

??????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???, ??????? ???????? ????? ?? ????? ?????????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ???"

6. Two other co-accused Raju and Vinay Shakya has been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 22.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38739 of 2023 (Raju Vs. State of U.P.) alongwith Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8805 of 2023 (Vinay Shakya Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereinunder:-

"1. Heard Mr. Raghuvansh Misra, the learned counsel for applicant-Raju, Mr. S.B. Singh, the learned counsel for applicant-Vinay Shakya and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. Applicant Raju has filed aforementioned repeat application for bail seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 184 of 2022, under Sections 302, 34, 397, 411 I.P.C. Police Station-Dannahar, District-Mainpuri during the pendency of trial i.e. Session Trial No. 91 of 2022 (State Vs. Sonu) under Sections 302, 397, 34, 411 I.P.C. Police Station Dannahar, District Mainpuri now pending in the court of Special Judge (DAA) District Mainpuri.

4. The first bail application of applicant-Raju was rejected by this Court by a detailed order vide order dated 19.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 56180 of 2022 (Raju Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 19.12.2022 is reproduced hereinunder:-

"1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Raju seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 184 of 2022, under Sections 302 34, 397, 411 IPC, P.S. Dannahar, District Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial.

3. Perused the record.

4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 21.7.2022, a delayed F.I.R. dated 22.7.2022 was lodged by first informant Smt. Anupam Shakya and was registered as Case Crime No. 184 of 2022, under Sections 302 IPC, P.S. Dannahar, District Mainpuri. In the aforesaid F.I.R., an unknown person has been arraigned as an accused.

5. In brief, the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. is to the effect that on 21.7.2022, Amir Singh husband of the first informant had gone to State Bank of India Ghiror Branch for withdrawing money. However, no contact could be made with him. In spite of hectic search, his whereabouts were not traceable and his mobile number 9627591800 was switched off. At 10.30 p.m., a man of acquaintance of first informant is alleged to have informed the first informant that the dead body of the husband of first informant is lying on the pavement of the canal i.e. GULAL WALI NAHAR and his Wagon R car bearing registration No. UP 84 Z 9038 is also lying near by. On reaching the aforesaid place she found various injuries on the body of her husband. She, accordingly, apprehended that her husband was done to death by some unknown person.

6. After lodging of aforementioned F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr. P. C. He first recovered the dead body of deceased and prepared the recovery memo of same dated 22.7.2022. Investigating Officer thereafter examined the Wagon R of the deceased. He found a black purse inside the car in which there was an Adhar Card, a Pan Card. a driving licence. photo copy of driving licence. a saffron colour gamchha which was lying a little far away from the vehicle of deceased. He, thereafter, seized the above and prepared the seizure memo of the same.

7. Thereafter, the inquest (panchnama ) of the body of the deceased was conducted on the same day i.e. 22.7.2022. In the opinion of witnesses of inquest (panch witnesses), the nature of death of deceased was characterized as homicidal and the cause of death of deceased was said to be on account of injuries sustained by the deceased which injuries have been caused by a sharp edged weapon.

8. Subsequent to above, the post mortem of the body of deceased was conducted. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased found following ante mortem injuries on his body:-

1. I/W size 11 x 0.5 cm x muscle deep over just below left ear to mid neck, 06 cm below from chin on left side.

2. I/w size 09 x 0.5 cm x muscle deep over just below right ear to mid of neck 07 cm from chin on right side.

3. Multiple I/w size 1.5 x 0.5 cm x organ deep on right side of chest anterior aspect extends from external notch to right nipple, no. of wound 232 in numbers.

4. I/w 1.5 x 0.5 cm and i/w 1.5 x 0.5 cm x organ deep over back of chest on right side just over right scapular region.

9. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of deceased was Hemorrhagic shock due to ante mortem injuries.

10. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined one Sonu. In the statement of this witness 4 persons namely (1) Anil Singh (2) Sonu Shakya (applicant herein), (3) Ratan Veer Prajapati and (4) Nagal Nirbhay were seen in the car of the deceased in the night of 21.7.2022.

11. Subsequent to above, Investigating Officer examined the C.C.T.V. footage of State Bank of India Ghiror. Upon examination of aforesaid C.C.T.V. footage it was revealed that on 21.7.2022 Amir Singh (deceased) entered the Bank and after withdrawing the money came out of the Bank at 4 p.m.

12. Thereafter, Investigating Officer came to village Badshahpur and examined the C.C.T.V. footage of Jan Sewa Kendra of deceased. The C.C.T.V. footage revealed that at around 3 p.m., the deceased was traveling alone in his car and was going towards Ghiror.

13. Investigating Officer thereafter examined the C.C.T.V. footage of Mui Gram Sewa Kendra situate at 56 paces ahead of S.B.I. Ghiror. Three persons were seen talking to the deceased Amir Singh. Investigating Officer thereafter took the aforesaid C.C.T.V. footage in a pen drive. and prepared the recovery memo of the same.

14. After having undertaken the aforesaid exercise, Investigating Officer examined 2 witnesses namely Sonu, Dheeeraj @ Dheru. These two witnesses after having a glance at the photograph of 3 persons referred to above confirmed that the deceased was last seen by them in their company.

15. On 21.7.2022, Investigating Officer recovered the black Honda sign Motorcycle without a number plate used in the commission of crime. On the aforesaid motorcycle three persons were riding. They were arrested after a police encounter. One of the accused had also sustained fire arm injury. The arrested accused disclosed their identity as Raju Yadav, Sonu and Ratanveer. From the person of Raju Yadav, the police recovered a country made pistol of .315 bore with an empty inside the barrel, 3 live cartridges and 2 empties. Rupees 35,000/- in the denomination of Rs. 500 currency notes were also recovered. Similarly from the person of Sonu, the police recovered a country made pistol of .315 bore with an empty inside the barrel and 2 live cartridges, Rupees 40,000/- cash in the denomination of Rs.500/- currency note. From the person of the third accused namely Ratanveer Rs.35,000/- in 500 Rupees denomination were recovered. Thereafter, on the same day on the pointing of arrested accused Sonu and Ratanveer, Investigating Officer recovered the knife which was used in the commission of crime. On the same day, Investigating Officer after a brief encounter arrested Vinay Shakya and recovered Rs. 90,000/- from his person in Rs. 500 currency notes. A .315 bore country made pistol with an empty inside and two live cartridges.

16. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of appellant Raju, Sonu Shakya, Ratanveer, Vinay Shkya is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the charge sheet dated 31.8.2022 whereby aforesaid accused have been charge sheeted under Sections 302, 34, 397 and 411 IPC.

17. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He is not named in F.I.R. Applicant has been falsely implicated in concerned case crime number. Applicant is a technical hand and has completed his I.T.I. course in 2022. The motorcycle alleged to have used in the commission of crime has not been recovered from applicant. The other recoveries from applicant i.e. Rs. 35,000/- and false and implanted, as there is no independent witness of recovery. There is no direct or credible evidence to implicate the applicant in the crime in question. Even otherwise applicant is a man of clean antecedents and has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 26.7.2022, as such, he has undergone more than 4 months of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

18. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. He submits that it is true that applicant is not named in F.I.R., but it is patently wrong to say that applicant is innocent. Present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and therefor complicity of applicant in the crime in question has to be considered into the light of parameters laid down by Apex Court for deciding a case based upon circumstantial evidence in Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622. Reliance is placed upon paragraph 152 of the report wherein the Court upon consideration and evaluation of law has crystallized the parameters regarding above. With reference to above, the learned A.G.A. submits that only the evidence of last seen but also part of the recovery of looted amount to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- is also from the applicant. The electronic evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and the statement of witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr. P. C. complete the chain of events. The motive behind the occurrence is fully established against applicant i.e. snatching of money from the deceased who had withdrawn the money from the Bank on the same day. Considering the gravity of offence and the heinous nature of crime committed by applicant he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court.

19. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

20. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for state, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that the evidence of last seen has emerged against applicant, the recovery of part of the looted amount from applicant i.e. Rs. 35, 000, the recovery of the weapon of assault i.e. knife on the pointing of the applicant and other co-accused, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, no case for grant of bail is made out.

21. In view of above, application fails and is liable to be rejected.

22. It is, accordingly, rejected."

5. Present repeat application for bail came up for orders before this Court on 10.10.2023 and this Court passed the following order:-

"1. Heard Mr. Ashwini Tripathi Advocate holding brief of Mr. Raghuvansh Misra, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. contends that Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8805 of 2023 (Vinay Shakya Vs. State of U.P.) filed by co-accused is already pending before this Court.

3. In view of above, connect aforementioned bail application alongwith present application.

4. Matter shall accordingly re-appear as fresh on 17.10.2023 alongwith connected matter.

5. When the matter is listed next, the details of both the bail applications shall be duly published in the cause list."

6. It is in view of above order dated 10.10.2023 that bail application filed by co-accused, Vinay Shakya i.e. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8805 of 2023 (Vinay Shakya Vs. State of U.P.) has also come up before this Court along with present repeat application for bail.

7. Mr. Raghuvansh Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant Raju submits that the charge sheet was submitted against applicant and other accused namely Sonu Shakya, Ratanveer Prajapati and Vinay Shakya, on 31.08.2022. However, inspite of the fact that a period of more than one year and 6 months has expired, no progress has been made in the trial of the applicant and others pending before court below. To buttress his submission, he submits even though the charge sheeted was submitted against accused on 31.08.2022 but the framing of charge order was passed by court below against charge sheeted accused on 03.11.2022. Up to this stage, only 2 prosecution witnesses namely PW-1 Anupam Shakya And PW-2 Sonvir Singh have been examined. However in the charge sheet as many as 18 witnesses have been nominated. As such, there is no likelihood of the trial getting concluded in near future.

8. It is next contended by the learned counsel for applicant that one of the charge sheeted co-accused Ratanveer Prajapati has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11390 of 2023 (Ratanveer Prajapati Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 19.05.2023 is reproduced hereinunder:-

"??????? ??????? ???????? ????? ????????? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? 184/2022, ???????? ???? 302, 397, 411, 34 ?????????, ???? ????????, ???? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ???

????? ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ?????

????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??, ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ?????????????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? 161 ?????????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???, ???? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ?????????? ? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ??? 26.07.2022 ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????

??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ??, ????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ? ????? ????

????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ???????????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???????????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???, ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ???

??? ??? ?? ???-??? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ???-???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????

1. ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ?? ??? ????????? ???? ??????

2. ????? ??????? ????????? ? ??????? ? ??????????? ?? ???????/???????? ?????

3. ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?????, ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ??????

4. ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?????????? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ? ??? ??????? ????? ??????

5. ????? ????????? ?? ?????????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?????????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?????, ????? ???? ?????? ???????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????

1. ??????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???, ??????? ???????? ????? ?? ????? ?????????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ???"

9. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant Raju that the case of present applicant is on better footing than aforementioned co-accused. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which, the case of present applicant can be so distinguished from aforesaid co-accused so as to deny him bail inasmuch as the evidence of last seen has emerged against other co-accused including Ratanveer Prajapati and not the present applicant and further the weapon of assault was recovered on the joint pointing of Ratanveer Prajapati and Sonu. He therefore, contends that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail order of co-accused Ratanveer Prajapati, present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.

10. Learned counsel for applicant with all humility submits that the evidence of last seen has emerged only against co-accused Ratanveer Prajapati (who has already been enlarged on bail), Vinay Shakya and Sonu Shakya. In this regard, he has referred to the statements of the witnesses of last seen namely Sonu, whose statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is on record at page 49 of the paper book and that of Dheeraj, whose statement is on record at page 52 of the paper book. As per the CCTV footage, the three persons recognized are Ratanveer Prajapati, Vinay Shakya and Sonu Shakya. On the above premise, he, therefore, contends that the recital occurring in the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by this Court to the effect that there is evidence of last seen against applicant is factually incorrect.

11. According to the learned counsel for applicant, the recovery of firearm from the person of accused applicant is immaterial inasmuch as, no firearm injuries were sustained by the deceased as per the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon. Therefore, simply on the basis of aforesaid recovery, the complicity of present applicant in the crime in question cannot be said to be established.

12. It is lastly submitted that recovery of Rs. 35,000/- in cash (in denomiation of Rs. 500 currency notes) is alleged to have been made from the applicant. However, the said recovery by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that applicant-Raju is guilty of committing the crime in question as the currency notes so recovered from the person of applicant did not carry any identification mark on the basis of which, they could be easily identified and distinguished.

13. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 26.07.2022. As such, he has undergone more than 1 year and 7 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. Up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, he 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.

14. Mr. S.B. Singh, the learned counsel for applicant Vinay Shakya has substantially adopted the argument raised by Mr. Raguvansh Mishra, the learned counsel representing co-accused Raju. He however, submits that the case of the present applicant is similar and identical to Ratanveer Prajapati who has already enlarged on bail. As such, applicant Vinay Shakya is liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

15. According to the learned A.G.A. applicant Vinay Shakya has criminal history of five cases including the present case. However, as per the instructions received by him the other four cases are subsequent to the criminal case giving rise to this application for bail. Applicant is in jail since 26.07.2022. As such, he has undergone more than 1 year and 7 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. Up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, he 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.

16. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicants are charge sheeted accused, therefore, they do not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. As per the material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, the complicity of the applicants stands established in the crime in question. The parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 (Para 152), for inferring the guilt of an accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence is fully established against applicants. The motive behind the occurrence was to commit loot from the deceased who had withdrawn money from the bank. As such, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicants. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant Raju is on better footing than co-accused Ratanveer Prajapati who has already been enlarged on bail, whereas, the case of applicant Vinay Shakya is similar and identical to that of co-accused Ratanveer Prajapati, who has already been enlarged on bail.

17. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that the case of applicant-Raju is on better footing than bailed out co-accused-Ratanveer, inasmuch as, the evidence of last seen has emerged against co-accused-Ratanveer and not against present applicant, there is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which, the case of present applicant can be so distinguished from bailed out co-accused Ratanveer Prajapati so as to deny him bail, therefore, in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail order of co-accused Ratanveer Prajapati, the charge sheet was submitted against applicants and other accused namely Sonu Shakya and Ratanveer Prajapati, on 31.08.2022, however, inspite of the fact that a period of more than one year and 6 months has expired, no substantial progress has been made in the trial of the applicants and others pending before court below inasmuch as, even though the charge sheeted was submitted against accused on 31.08.2022 but the framing of charge order was passed by court below against charge sheeted accused only on 03.11.2022, up to this stage, only 2 prosecution witnesses have been examined, the case of applicant-Vinay Shakya is similar and identical to co-accused, Ratanveer Prajapati, who has already enlarged on bail, the evidence of last seen has emerged only against co-accused Ratanveer Prajapati (who has already been enlarged on bail), Vinay Shakya and Sonu Shakya, as is evident from the statements of the witnesses of last seen namely Sonu, whose statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is on record at page 49 of the paper book and that of Dheeraj, whose statement is on record at page 52 of the paper book, as per the CCTV footage, the three persons recognized are Ratanveer Prajapati, Vinay Shakya and Sonu Shakya, the clean antecedents of applicants, the period of incarceration undergone, 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 applicants stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicants during the pendency of trial, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present applications for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicants have made out a case for bail.

18. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed.

19. Let the applicants-Raju & Vinay Shakya, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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 APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

(iv) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANTS.

20. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on their bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above."

7. Learned counsel for applicant contends that the case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of bailed out co-accused Ratanveer Prajapati. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which, the case of present applicant could be so distinguished from aforementioned bailed out co-accused so as to deny him bail. On the above premise, he, therefore, contends that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail orders of bailed out co-accused, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

8. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 26.07.2022. As such, he has undergone more than 1 year and 7 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted on 31.08.2022. As such, 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 above premise, he 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.

9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

10. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that co-accused Ratanveer Prajapati has already been enlarged on bail, the case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of bailed out co-accused Ratanveer Prajapati and therefore, in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail order of co-accused referred to above, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted on 31.08.2022, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized yet the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present repeat application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant-Sonu Shakya, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

13. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

Order Date :- 8.5.2024

Imtiyaz