Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1657 (ALL)

Bhanwar Singh v. State of U. P.

2022-10-13

SIDDHARTH

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Ram Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Bhanwar Singh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 3080 of 2017, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 404, 411, 504, 506, 120-B, 34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Sahibabad, District- Ghaziabad pendency of trial. 3. There is allegation that on 09.01.2017 at about 04:30 p.m., the father of the informant, Surendra Pal Singh, was sitting in his office. Informant and Sarveshwar were standing outside the office of his father when Sarfaraj, Mustak, Tanjil, Rajendra and Bhanwar Singh and two other persons entered into the office and Sarveshwar saw that the aforesaid seven persons were abusing the father of the informant and making firing at him. At that time, two uncles of the informant, namely, Harendra Singh and Brijendra Singh, reached the office of his father in car and they also saw the incident. They tried to save the father of the informant and the miscreants fired at them also. The applicant and Sarveshwar in order to save their lives ran upstairs where they were also fired upon but they were not hurt and the bullets hit the wall. When his uncles, Harendra and Virendra, tried to hide behind their car, miscreants fired on them and it hit the car. Thereafter public started collecting and the accused persons vanished after firing in the air. They took away the bag kept on office table. Thereafter, the informant took his father to the hospital with the help of Sarveshwar, Harendra, Virendra and other people but he was declared dead. Death of his father was caused on account of firing made by the aforesaid accused persons. One of the relative of co-accused is Judge in Chitrakoot who had extended threat to his father regarding a dispute of plot along with a criminal Amir and he had threatened his father to leave the aforesaid plot otherwise he will be killed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in this case five investigating officers have investigated the case. Charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and co-accused persons, Saif, Nadir, Sajid, Amir and Jaiky. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in this case five investigating officers have investigated the case. Charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and co-accused persons, Saif, Nadir, Sajid, Amir and Jaiky. They have already been enlarged on bail by different order of this court and the orders have been brought on record as Annexure 46 to the affidavit. Subsequently, the named co-accused, Rajendra, was also enlarged on bail for limited period as clear from annexure 47 to this bail application. The bail granted to co-accused persons, Amit and Jackey, have been challenged before the Apex Court on the ground that they had criminal history of 12 cases and 8 cases each. However, the applicant has no criminal history to his credit and his case is different from co-accused, Amir and Jaiky. 5. Along with supplementary affidavit, the order of Apex Court has been brought on record whereby the bail granted to co-accused aforesaid has been cancelled and the matter has been remitted back to this court for reconsideration. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by learned A.G.A which is taken on record. In the counter affidavit, filing of Special Appeal (SLP) against the bail granted to the aforesaid co-accused persons have been mentioned. Thereafter, only simple denials have been made without given any reasoned reply to the averments made in the bail application. 7. Counsel for the applicant has produced the order of the Apex Court before this court whereby the bail granted to the named accused, Amir and Jaiky, have been set aside by the Apex Court on the ground that this court did not assigned any reason for granting bail. 8. This court finds that the co-accused persons, Saif, Nadir, Sanjeed and Jaiky, were not named in the FIR and there were no direct allegations against them in the FIR. They were not named in the FIR. Clear role was assigned to the applicant of causing gun shot injury to the deceased on his body. Four entry wounds and three exit wounds were found which shows that it was a case of indiscriminate firing by six named and two unknown accused persons as per FIR. There is allegation in the FIR that there was prior enmity of the deceased and Naeem Ahmad and Amir regarding a plot of land and his father was threatened by him earlier. There is allegation in the FIR that there was prior enmity of the deceased and Naeem Ahmad and Amir regarding a plot of land and his father was threatened by him earlier. Amir is one of the co-accused in this case. There is implication of the applicant under Section 149 IPC also and from the allegations in the FIR the offence of forming illegal assembly for the purpose of securing common object of murder of a person appears to be proved against the applicant. 9. After considering the rival contentions, material on record and gravity of the allegations against the applicant, this court does not finds any ground for enlarging the applicant on bail at this stage. 10. The bail application is accordingly, rejected. 11. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.