Allahabad High Court

Gaurav vs State Of U.P. on 11 February, 2025

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20178
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43074 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Gaurav
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- G.S. Chauhan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

2. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 279 of 2020, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 302, 427, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Barua Sagar, District - Jhansi, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

3. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2024, which is reproduced as below :-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 0279 of 2020, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 302, 427 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Barua Sagar, District - Jhansi with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. As per prosecution version in the first information report, the fire-arm injury sustained by the deceased was caused by co-accused Sanjay alias Bablu and that co-accused Pradeep has given a spade blow and applicant and co-accused Sanjay pelted stones and made firing in air. Learned counsel submitted that as per prosecution version, the first information report was lodged by the deceased while he was in injured condition but the said allegation is false and in fact it was not lodged by the deceased. The wife of deceased Montu Yadav has stated that co-accused Sanjay alias Bablu has fired bullet at the deceased and co-accused Rahul and Pradeep were having spade and co-accused Amit, Sumit and applicant were carrying stones. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that applicant has not caused any injury to deceased by fire-arm or by pelting stones. In the first information report, it was also alleged that golden chain of deceased was also robbed but during investigation the witnesses have not stated about that fact. The alleged recovery of country made pistol shown from applicant is wholly false. It is further submitted that according to prosecution version in first information report only the role of pelting stones over deceased was attributed to the applicant, which was not sufficient to cause death of deceased. Further, witness Smt. Megha Yadav, Smt. Raj Kumari, Shubham alias Shivam Yadav and Satyendra Yadav have assigned the role of pelting stones upon deceased to co-accused Amit alias Lalla. In the first information report, general role of firing was assigned to several accused persons but the aforesaid witnesses have assigned the role of firing to co-accused Sanjay alias Bablu, whereas in statements of Shubham alias Shivam Yadav and Satyendra Yadav the role of firing was assigned to co-accused Saurabh and thus there is inconsistency in the prosecution version regarding role of firing.

4. It is further submitted that deceased Montu Yadav was a person of bad character and he was having long criminal history to his credit. Co-accused Anoop Singh @ Lalla @ Raja @ Anoop has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.09.2023. It was stated that role of applicant is distinguished from co-accused Pradeep Kumar. Lastly, it was submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 16.12.2020 and that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the first information report, which was lodged by the deceased while he was in injured condition, it has been clearly mentioned that applicant and co-accused Saurabh were having country made pistols and it was alleged that co-accused Sanjay alias Bablu has fired a bullet at the deceased, which has hit at his leg and thereafter co-accused Pradeep has given a spade blow and applicant and co-accused Sanjay alias Bablu have pelted stones at deceased and made firing in air. It was submitted that as deceased has passed away, thus the contents of first information report lodged by the deceased have been treated to be as dying declaration. It was further submitted that bail application of co-accused Pradeep Kumar has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.10.2021. Three stone pieces and one spade were recovered from the spot. It was submitted that the murder of deceased was committed in furtherance of common object. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for informant has referred the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumer Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in MANU/SC/0483/2021, Parshuram vs. State of M.P., reported in MANU/SC/1208/2023 and Surendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in MANU/SC/0357/2023.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. Perusal of record shows that applicant is named in the first information report. As per postmortem report of deceased, the deceased has sustained two fire-arm injuries and six other injuries. The role of firing was also assigned to the applicant, however it was alleged that it was co-accused Sanjay alias Bablu, who has fired a bullet at the leg of deceased. The role of pelting stones at deceased was attributed to the applicant. The recovery of country made pistol has been shown at the instance of the applicant-accused. The bail application of co-accused Pradeep Kumar has already been rejected by this Court. Though, co-accused Anoop Singh alias Lalla alias Raja alias Anoop has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court but no specific role was assigned to him. It appears that statements of some of the eye witnesses are yet to be recorded before the trial court.

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, gravity of the offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the matter, at this stage, no case for bail is made out.

9. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is rejected."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that role of causing fire-arm injuries to deceased has been attributed to co-accused Sanjay @ Bablu. The role of applicant was shown in assaulting the deceased with stone at his feet. It was also alleged that applicant has made fire in air but no one has sustained any injury from the alleged firing of the applicant. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery of country made pistol shown from applicant. After rejection of first bail application of applicant, the second bail application of co-accused Pradeep Kumar, who was assigned role of assaulting deceased with spade, has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 22.10.2024, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11793 of 2022 (Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P.).

5. It is further submitted that applicant is in jail since 16.12.2020 and thus, he has already undergone the detention of more than four years but during trial only one witness has been examined and part statement of second witness has been recorded so far and thus, trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long time. Lastly, it was submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 16.12.2020, having no previous criminal history, and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is named in the first information report and that specific role of attacking deceased with stone has been attributed to applicant. It was submitted that in the dying-declaration, deceased has mentioned that co-accused Sanjay @ Bablu has fired a bullet upon him and that applicant was also having a country-made pistol and that applicant and co-accused persons have caused injuries by stone.

7. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts, particularly the period of detention of applicant and stage of trial, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for bail is made out. Hence, the present second bail application is hereby allowed.

8. Let the applicant - Gaurav involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions: