Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1182 (ALL)

Gyanender Singh v. State Of U. P.

2010-04-12

Y.K.SANGAL

body2010
Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. This is an application to release the accused-applicant Gyanender Singh on bail in crime case No. 350/2007 under Section 302, 120-B/34 IPC, P.S. Medical, District Meerut. It is a murder of Government servant Deputy Jailor. 2. As per prosecution case, deceased was appointed Deputy Jailor in the District Meerut. His colleagues were annoyed with him so co-accused Yadvendra Shukla, Avinash Chauhan and R.K. Singh who were also jail employees got murdered him by hired criminals out of them one is the applicant. It was further argued that deceased have spoken to his wife some days before the occurrence that applicant and one another Dharmendra have been hired for his murder and later on when he was going on the relevant date, time and place near jail chungi, he was murdered by them and there are two eye-witnesses of the occurrence whose shops near by the place of occurrence. They have given eye account of the occurrence to the investigating officer under their statement under Sectioin 161 CrPC naming both, applicants of Dharmendra. Later on, when applicant was apprehended an English pistal was recovered from his possession and he confessed his guilt saying that with this weapon he has committed this murder in the company of other accused. 3. Applicant claimed his false implication due to enmity. It was further argued on his behalf that in first statement to investigating officer neither the wife of the deceased nor these alleged eye-witnesses have named him but second time, when their statement was recorded under the pressure of police all the three have named him. He is in jail since 13.08.2007 and trial is not being concluded. 4. Learned AGA in reply said that applicant is a history-sheeter and his history is open at P.S. Bagpat at No. 365A. He is involved in 19 cases whose details are given in counter affidavit. It is a case of murder of a government servant by the hired criminals. Both the eye-witnesses' shops are there in the same locality where the murder has taken place. No cause has been shown why both are naming him. He is involved in 19 cases whose details are given in counter affidavit. It is a case of murder of a government servant by the hired criminals. Both the eye-witnesses' shops are there in the same locality where the murder has taken place. No cause has been shown why both are naming him. It will be seen in the trial of the accused that what is the effect of the fact that they have not named the applicant in their first statement before the investigating officer. It was further argued that seeing the history-sheet of applicant apprehension is there that if he is released on bail, he will again involve himself in heinous crime. Already he was on bail in several cases of heinous offence but again he has committed the offence so again he was apprehended by the police. Possibility of his absconding and fleeing from the justice also cannot be ruled out and it cannot be ruled out that after releasing on bail, he may pressurize the witnesses and force them not to give evidence. He may also cause delay in trial. 5. It may be correct that accused is in jail from 13.08.2007 and his trial is not being concluded but mere fact that accused has undergone certain period in jail by itself could not be entitled the accused to be enlarged on bail nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future if gravity of the offence alleged severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused then it will not be proper to release him on bail. Again and again he is being involved in cases of heinous nature and there are 19 cases in his history-sheet, details given in the counter-affidavit. Presumption of his innocence is weakened by his involvement in such type of cases again and again. Considering the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which this offence has been committed and as per prosecution case applicant is hired criminal, it will not be proper to release him on bail in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, application is hereby rejected.