Allahabad High Court
Vikas Singh Dhama vs State Of U.P. on 3 January, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:1153
Reserved On:- 19.12.2024
Delivered On:- 03.01.2025
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46240 of 2024
Applicant :- Vikas Singh Dhama
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Upadhyay,Shailendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant; Sri K.K. Pandey, Advocate, appears on behalf of victim; learned AGA for State and perused the material on record.
2. The allegations in the F.I.R are that because of old enmity named accused, Amit Kumar, Pushpendra, Aniket, Prabhakar and others, came at Parshvanath colony, Moradabad at about 06:00 p.m and caused murder of Anuj Chaudhary by firing on him. At the time of incident, Puneet Chaudhary, who was along with Anuj Chaudhary at that time, also suffered gun shot injury. Hence, F.I.R was lodged by Sandeep Singh on 10.08.2023 at 20.49 hours at P.S.- Majhola, District- Moradabad.
3. Clearly the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. Thereafter, the statements of first informant, injured, Punit Chaudhary, Dr. Ashok Kumar and Anam, residents of the colony of deceased were recorded but the applicant was not named. Co-accused, Amit Kumar, was arrested by the police but he also did not named the applicant. On 19.09.2023 the mother of deceased, Smt. Rajni, gave an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad stating that in murder of her son on 10.08.2023 involvement of Mohit Chaudhary who is in jail and his father, Satendra Singh, who is in District Jail, Bijnor is there and they are the main conspirators along with applicant and his son. Brother-in-law of deceased, namely, Niraj Khatri, also made similar application stating that the applicant was having severe enmity with the deceased and co-accused, Amit and Mohit Chaudhary, were intending to kill him. Co-accused, Lalit Kaushik, Mundha Pandey and Kamal Vir, were also involved in the conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased. In the statement of sister of deceased, Jyoti, she stated that co-accused, Satendra Sigh and applicant were present at the spot of the commission of offence while co-accused, Satendra Singh, was in District Jail, Bijnor at that time. Statement of Jyoti was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The investigating officer recorded the confessional statement of co-accused, Satendra Singh. Statement of one Jagdeep Singh Chauhan, was recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C on 11.11.2023 wherein he stated that on 06.08.2023 at about 2:00 p.m., he was having breakfast at Balli Dhaba, Rudrapur Road, where 4-5 persons came in a black scorpio car. They sat near his table in the dhaba and were talking about the disturbance created by Anuj Chaudhary (deceased). They were also taking the names of Aniket, Pushpendra @ Bhura, Amit and Vikas Singh Dhama (applicant) while talking. He knew Anuj Chaudhary because his brother-in-law, Niraj Khatri, is resident of village nearby. They were having a photograph of the deceased also and showing it to each other. Niraj Khatri stated that his brother-in-law, Anuj Chaudhary, had lost the election of Block Pramukh in the year 2021 and co-accused, Santosh Devi wife of Prabhakar won the election of Block Pramukh. Anuj Chaudhary was planning to move no confidence motion against Prabhakar and being fearful of the same the applicant and co-accused conspired and got the murder of deceased committed with the help of hired shooters, namely, Akash @ Gatua, Suryakant Sharma @ Shanu and Sushil @ Golu. Other story developed in the statement was that deceased was known to Gulab Singh and there was land dispute between co-accused, Satendra and Gulab Singh. Satendra Singh wanted to take possession over the land and in the month of August, 2021 and verbal altercation took place between Gulab, Anuj Chaudhary (deceased) and father of applicant, Satendra Singh. It was also alleged that the father of applicant, Satendra Singh, forged the land document and got the sale deed executed in favour of his wife and a Case Crime No. 263 of 2021 was registered.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the mother of deceased moved an application dated 19.09.2023 after 49 days of the incident wherein the applicant and his father have been named as conspirators. Charge sheet has already been submitted against the applicant. He has criminal history of 3 cases of minor offence explained in paragraph nos. 38, 39 and 40 of the affidavit in support of bail application. Co-accused, Satendra Singh, was granted bail on 22.02.2024 by this court but the Apex Court has remanded the matter granting him interim bail till the matter is taken by the High Court.
5. Learned counsel for the mother of deceased has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that from the material collected by the investigating officer, role of conspiracy has been assigned to the applicant. Bail application of co-accused, Kamal Vir Singh, was also rejected by this court on 08.01.2024 directing the trial court to conclude the trial within a year. Co-accused, Akash @ Gatua, had confessed to his involvement in this case. He has admitted that he along with Suryakant @ Shany, Sushil @ Golu, were informed by Niraj Pal, Amit and Pushpendra that in case they kill one person, they will get handsome amount. Niraj Pal told them that he will provide them land in the village and get them bailed out and take care of their families. 10 days ago, Suryakant called him at his canteen and provided him money and country made pistol. Thereafter reki was conducted at different places for eliminating the deceased, Suryakant, had opened a canteen in front of Bright Star Hospital where the applicant and co-accused, Sushil @ Golu, used to stay. They observed the movement of deceased, Anuj Chaudhary and they committed the alleged offence. He has further submitted that no incriminating recovery has been made from the applicant.
6. After hearing the rival submissions, this court finds that the applicant has also been assigned the role of conspiracy like the co-accused who have granted bail by the order of date by this court, namely, Kamal Vir, Lalit Kaushik and Satendra Singh, vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 12065 of 2024, 10022 of 2024 and 3893 of 2024.
7. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant, Vikas Singh Dhama , involved in Case Crime No. 598 of 2023, under Sections- 302, 307, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Majhola, District- Moradabad, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
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.
Order Date :- 03.01.2025
Rohit
