Allahabad High Court
Amit Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. on 26 May, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89069
Reserved on 20.5.2025
Delivered on 26.5.2025
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15626 of 2025
Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Sakshi Jaiswal,Vimal Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Shri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.
The prosecution case in short is that co-accused, Abhimanu Singh, Vivek Singh alias Mutthulli and Akhilesh Kumar Singh,came together on bike to a place where applicant was already present and they shot Vivek Singh alias Vikky . The deceased was declared dead at the hospital at 7.20 P.M. on 25.10.2023.Two gun shot injuries were found on the body of the deceased. From the statement of the informant it appears that co-accused, Prashant Kumar Mishra alias Kalle, had some altercation with deceased and Prashant Kumar Mishra, called other co-accused there. No role has been assigned by the informant to the applicant. The place of incident in this case is not certain. In the the site plan it is shown as Bharupur Ajgana and in First Information Report it is mentioned as Bhaw Bhawani.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the statement of the informant it is clear that he has not seen the incident and not disclosed the role of the applicant. The independent witness and eye witness have stated that there was no prior intention to commit alleged offence.It took place all of sudden and Prashant Kumar Mishra alias Kalle gave pistol to co-accused Abhimanu Singh, who shot the deceased..There was no recovery made from the applicant. He has submitted that applicant is employed in Army and has been falsely implicated in this case. He is posted in Jammu and Kashmir. While he was performing his duty in the Army proceedings under section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him.He is in jail since 28.2.2025 and has no criminal history to his credit. Alongwith supplementary affidavit learned counsel for the applicant has brought on record the certificate issued by the officer Commanding wherein he has stated that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.He cannot be relieved from the duty because of Lok Sabha Election in May, 2024.
Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that applicant has been assigned specific role of twisting of arms of the deceased.He has been implicated with the help of section 149 I.P.C. He has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in support of his submission in the case of Ms.Y Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2022 0 AIR (SC)1910, Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale and another Vs. The State of Karnataka, 2025 0 Supreme (SC)348 and Imran Vs. Mohammed Bhava and another, 2022 0 Supreme (SC),360 and has submitted that where there was common intention shared by the accused in commission of criminal Act, all are liable to be punished.The post trial judgements are not relevant for considering bail application of pre-trial accused.
On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.
After considering the rival contentions this court finds that co-accused, Akhilesh Kumar Singh, who was assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased, has already been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 12.5.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27095 of 2024.This court has considered judgement of the Apex court and finds that judgements have no implication in the fact of the case.
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, recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677. 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.
Let the applicant, Amit Kumar Singh , involved in Case Crime No. 152 of 2023 , under Section- 147,148,149,302 IPC, Police Station- Jigana, District- Mirzapur, 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.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 26.5.2025
Atul kr. sri.
