Allahabad High Court
Raj Vijayendra Singh Alias Raj Vijendra ... vs State Of U.P. on 30 October, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30074 of 2025
Raj Vijayendra Singh Alias Raj Vijendra Singh Alias Ravi
..Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Amit Kumar Srivastava, Atharva Dixit, Pranav Tiwary, Suraj Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Pradeep Kumar Mishra
Reserved on 15.10.2025
Delivered on 30.10.2025
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.171 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The son of the informant Hemant Kumar Singh was a student of 12th class in Gyandeep English Medium School, Varanasi. During the day at about 1.30 PM, Ravi (applicant) s/o Raj Vijendra Singh, Manager of the Institution, called his son to the college. At about 2:30 PM, the informant got the information that his son has been taken to the applicant by Shashank and Kishan, whereby his son has been shot.
5. The persons present there rushed him to Trauma Centre, B.H.U., where the doctors declared him dead. The informant also reached there and instituted the FIR at the police station.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
7. The FIR is delayed by about six hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
8. The applicant has nothing to do with the day to day running of the institution, rather he is the son of the manager of the school and has been made a scapegoat by the informant.
9. The truth is that the deceased was troubling a girl and was a person of bad temper. The said girl had also complained about the matter to the management of the institution.
10. The deceased person had committed suicide as he took the pistol of the applicant and shot himself in his head. The applicant rushed the deceased to hospital. Had he committed the offence, he would not have rushed the deceased to the hospital in an effort to save his life.
11. The allegations made in the FIR against the applicant are false, preposterous and hold no iota of truth in them. The police had taken into possession the blood swab and the other articles, including a pistol which was lying under the bed. The spot inspection report has been filed as annexure no.2 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application.
12. The applicant held a licence of the said weapon i.e. pistol and was about to leave the premises after counselling the deceased to refrain from following the girl only and the deceased took the pistol belonging to the applicant and shot himself.
13. The CCTV footage indicates that the driver of the applicant had taken a small black bag to the room at about 1:36 PM and the applicant was seen coming out of the room with black bag at about 01:38 PM and at 01:40 PM, three persons were visible taking away the injured person Hemant Kumar Singh outside the room. The dead body of the deceased was found on a stretcher at the gate of hospital.
14. The CDR of mobile no.7518145014 of the deceased person indicates that the applicant had called from his mobile number no.9839553330 at 13:05:59 and the conversation went up for twenty seconds and the deceased had called Ashish Kumar Singh and Vishal subsequent to it.
15. The applicant, as a bona fide act, had called the S.H.O., Shivpur to six times between 13:55 PM to 14:23 PM and the said conversation went up for thirteen seconds. The police had the information regarding the incident well before the institution of FIR.
16. The statement of said Ashish Kumar Singh was recorded by the Investigating Officer and it was found that the deceased person was interested in a girl and was obsessed with her and had even tried to commit suicide earlier on.
17. Even the statement of the victim was also recorded and she has stated that the deceased used to call her and she had stopped talking to him. Her mother had complained to the applicant so that he may ask the deceased to refrain from following her.
18. The post-mortem examination report indicates that the diseased had one firearm wound of entry and one of exit, which were communicating to each other and tattooing was present on wound of entry, which indicated that the fire has been shot from close range and was a suicide. The other injuries are simple in nature, which may have been caused at the time of carrying the deceased to hospital.
19. The driver of the applicant Ravi Shanker Pandey has categorically stated that the deceased was first rushed to Khush Hal Memorial Hospital, but due to non-availability of any ventilator there, the deceased was then rushed to Heritage Hospital, whereby he was declared as brought dead.
20. The said driver has also stated that the applicant was only advising and counselling the deceased to refrain from following the said girl.
21. The doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination has also stated that death was caused by shock due to firearm injury.
22. The CDR location of the applicant indicates that his mobile was found switched off in the evening of 22.04.2025 only and the last location was Cantonment Varanasi that too after institution of instant false FIR.
23. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.04.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
24. It is an open and shut case. It was a matter of love triangle and the applicant has shot and committed the murder of son of the informant in his house.
25. The applicant was interested in the said girl and has committed the said offence just to remove the deceased person who was proving a hurdle in his way as he loved the said girl.
26. The blood stains and the pistol, recovered from his house, also corroborate the prosecution story.
27. It is also admitted fact that the applicant called the deceased person to his premise and committed the said murder.
28. Even the inquest report, which was undertaken after the offence, indicated that the dead body of the deceased person was found lying outside the mortuary on the floor.
29. The CDR report indicates that the applicant, deceased person and the eye-witnesses were present at the place of occurrence.
30. Even the statement of the victim indicates that the applicant had committed the said murder, although she is not an eye-witness.
31. The CCTV footage also indicates that the applicant had taken the pistol out of the bag and the reason for taking out the pistol from the bag could not be other than committing the instant offence.
32. The statement of the driver of the applicant Ravi Shanker Pandey also indicates that at the time of offence, the deceased and the applicant alongwith Shashank were present in the room, as such, the onus lies on the applicant to explain the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased.
CONCLUSION:
33. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the promptness of FIR and the call details of the applicant and the deceased person coupled with the fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the premises of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
34. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
35. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
October 30, 2025
(Ravi Kant)
