Arpan Chaudhary vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 17962 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Arpan Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. on 20 May, 2024

Author: Samit Gopal

Bench: Samit Gopal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90766
 
Court No. - 87
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24245 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Arpan Chaudhary
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Kumar Tyagi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Harish Chandra
 

 
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Harish Chandra, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State.

2. The present matter has been placed before this Court in compliance of order dated 29.02.2024 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court observing that co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court and parity is claimed with the said co-accused persons, and hence, in view of the judgments of the Apex Court, the matter was be placed before the appropriate bench, after getting nomination from Hon'ble the Chief Jusctice. The office vide its report dated 07.03.2024 has placed the present matter before this Court with the note that in compliance of the order dated 29.02.2024 of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice and the administrative order dated 14.12.2023, the matter is placed before this Court.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Arpan Chaudhary seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 1600 of 2020, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad during the pendency of trial.

4. The First Information Report of the present matter was lodged on 09.10.2020 by Abhishek Tyagi, under Section 302 I.P.C. against two scooty borne unknown persons alleging therein that he with his cousin Naveen and father Naresh Tyagi went for morning walk on 09.10.2020 at about 5:30 A.M. and he was talking with Naveen and walking slightly behind his father and reached C-Block, Lohiya Nagar Park Gate, wherein a scooty with two unknown persons crossed them and the person sitting at the pillion of the scooty alighted from it and shot his father due to which his father fell down, after which the person riding the scooty exhorted him to fire on his head and finish him, on which his father was shot on his head. He and Naveen became surprised and started shouting on which people of nearby came there, but the said two persons on the scooty ran away showing their weapons. He took his father to Yashoda Hospital, where the doctors declared him dead. His report been lodged and action been taken.

5. Naresh Tyagi is the deceased in the present matter, whose post mortem examination was conducted in which the doctors found five firearm injuries, which were entry wounds having exits along with one abrasion on the left knee.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the First Information Report has been lodged by Abhishek Tyagi, son of the deceased Naresh Tyagi. It is submitted that subsequently even in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he does not name any accused persons, but he stated that although, his father was contractor but has no animosity with anyone. It is further submitted that after twenty days of the incident, one Pankaj Tyagi was interrogated by the Investigating Officer on 29.10.2020, who discloses the fact that his in-law informed him that Jitendra Tyagi, who is that brother-in-law, has committed murder. It is submitted that subsequently Jitendra Tyagi disclosed the name of Girish Pal Tyagi is the conspirator and of Vipin Sharma being involved in the matter. It is subsequently argued that Vipin Sharma was then arrested on a scooty on which the applicant was a pillion rider, who was also apprehended and their statements were recorded, who stated to have committed the said incident and a pistol of 0.30 bore along with two live cartridges were recovered from the right pocket of the applicant.

7. It is submitted that the said recovery is a false recovery without any corroboration of the use of the said weapon. It is further submitted that the implication of the applicant in the present matter is on account of suspicion only. It is next submitted that co-accused Jitendra Tyagi has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.05.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10157 of 2021 (Jitendra Tyagi Vs. State of U.P.), co-accused Manoj has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42073 of 2021 (Manoj Vs. State of U.P.), co-accused Girish Pal Tyagi has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5366 of 2022 (Girish Pal Tyagi Vs. State of U.P.) and Vipin Sharma has been granted bail by coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 16.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46982 of 2022 (Vipin Sharma Vs. State of U.P.). The copies of the orders have been placed before the Court, which are Annexure-11 to the affidavit. Further, while placing paragraph 31 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the applicant is involved in eight other criminal cases and in all the cases, he is on bail. The orders of the bail have been placed before the Court, which are Annexure-14 to the affidavit, except for an order of bail passed in Case Crime No. 198 of 2022.

8. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 20.11.2020. He be released on bail.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the applicant is actively involved in the present case. It is further submitted that from the possession of the applicant, a firearm with two live cartridges have been recovered. It is further submitted that the post-mortem examination report of the deceased corroborates with the prosecution version and the injuries clearly show that they are firearm injuries which get corroborated from the prosecution version. It is further submitted that the applicant is involved in eight criminal cases, which are of serious nature and had been in the field of crime since he was a juvenile as would appear from the disclosure made in paragraph 31 (3) and (4) of the affidavit, which would go to show that in proceedings under the Gangsters Act he was granted bail in a criminal appeal, which was filed by him as a juvenile, and further in another case, he was granted bail in a criminal revision, which was filed by him as a juvenile, which are of the year 2012. It is submitted that the nature of cases in which the applicant is involved are serious in nature, which are under Sections 307, 302 I.P.C., Arms Act and even under the Gangsters Act. It is submitted that looking to the facts of the case, the recovery from the applicant, the criminal history of the applicant, the bail application deserves to be dismissed.

10. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant has been made an accused during investigation. At the time of his arrest, a country made pistol was recovered from him. The prosecution case is of participation by two scooty borne persons in the matter, in which one person has been assigned the role of shooting, whereas the other person has been assigned the role of driving the scoooty and of exhortation. The applicant has criminal history of eights cases against him, which are of serious nature. The disclosure and explanation in paragraph 31 of the affidavit would go to show that in the year 2012, when he was a juvenile, since then he has been active in the crime world. The cases of his involvement are serious in nature. Even proceedings under the Gangsters Act have been lodged against him. The criminal history of an accused is a relevant fact to be considered while considering a bail application. The Apex Court in the Case of Brijmani Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar & anr. : (2022) 4 SCC 497 has held in paragraph 36 that the severity of the punishment if allegations are beyond reasonable doubt, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused, tampering of the evidence, the frivolity of the case of the prosecution, criminal antecedents of the accused and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against accused has to be seen for striking the balance in the present case, the said paragraph 36 reads as under:-

"36. We have extracted the relevant portions of the impugned orders [Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856], [Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857] above. At the outset, we observe that the extracted portions are the only portions forming part of the "reasoning" of the High Court while granting bail. As noted from the aforecited judgments, it is not necessary for a court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail particularly when the case is at the initial stage and the allegations of the offences by the accused would not have been crystalised as such. There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail. At the same time, a balance would have to be struck between the nature of the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge against the accused."

11. In the case of Krishan Mohan Tiwari Vs. Vishnu Mishra (S.L.P. No. 6981 of 2023, decided on 31.10.2023), the Apex Court observed that the nature of the case in which the accused is involved has to be gone into in detail, while he considering a bail application. In the present case, the criminal history of the applicant goes to show that he is involved in serious cases right from the days of his being a juvenile in the year 2012. The recovery from his possession, the corroboration of the medical evidence from the evidence on record and the criminal history of the applicant do not entitle him to be released on bail.

12. The present Criminal Misc. Bail Application is, thus, rejected.

Order Date :- 20.5.2024

Aiman

(Samit Gopal,J.)