Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Mayank Kumar Jain, J.
Nitesh Kumar Singh – Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Opposite Parties
Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 302 of 2021, Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 188, 207, 255 of 2022
Decided On : 21-04-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 302, 120B - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 439(2) - Application - Seeking cancellation of bail granted - Applicant/complainant Nitesh Kumar Singh lodged first information report in Police Station that his elder brother along, who was known to him, was returning in his private vehicle after visiting his friend - At around 12.00 noon car was stopped at shop - Five persons riding two motorcycles came there and fired upon his elder brother. On receiving this information, informant rushed towards the place of occurrence and found that his brother was still alive at that time - When he, along with some other persons, was taking his brother to Hospital, his brother told him that accompanied by two unknown persons had shot him - His brother also told him that committed conspiracy to kill him - As soon as he reached hospital, doctors declared his brother dead - Argument cannot be accepted since there is no denial that the opposite parties had criminal history to their credit which was concealed by them and they misled trial court into believing that they had no criminal history to their credit - Moreover, criminal history to credit of opposite parties are not controverted by them - Act of opposite parties demonstrate that they had misused the liberty of bail granted to them - They would adversely affect fair trial and they would tamper the evidence proposed to be produced against them during trial. [Para 7]
Finding of Court : Learned trial Court while granting bail vide order dated overlooked oral dying declaration made by deceased about involvement of opposite parties/accused who were accompanied by two unknown persons - Similarly, while passing impugned bail order dated learned trial Court completely overlooked statements of informant and Ranjana Singh as noted down by Investigating Officer in which oral dying declaration of deceased was narrated - It is to be noted here that statement of informant Nitesh Kumar Singh was noted down by Investigating Officer on while impugned bail order granting bail to opposite party was passed - Statement of informant Nitesh Kumar Singh that deceased before his last breath made an oral dying declaration was available on record while passing impugned bail order dated but it was not taken into consideration by trial court - Similarly, statement -sister in law (bhabhi) of informant, was noted down by Investigating Officer on wherein she stated that when was being taken to hospital by informant after incident she was also sitting in same car and that she was also witness of said oral dying declaration.
Result : Bail cancellation applications are allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Sri Surendra Kumar Chaube, learned counsel for the applicant-Nitesh Kumar Singh.
Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadon, Sri Rajeev Nayan Singh, Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh and Sri Krishan Murari Tripathi learned counsel for the opposite parties-Sabal Singh @ Amritesh Singh, Hari Singh and Raj Narain Pandey.
Sri S. K. Ojha, learned AGA, Sri Suraj Singh, Sri Yogeshwar Rai, Ms. Reema Gupta, learned counsel for the State of U.P.
2. Applicant Nitesh Kumar Singh has filed Criminal Misc. Bail cancellation application Nos. 302 of 2021, 188 of 2022 and 207 of 2022 under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted to opposite parties namely Shabal Singh @ Amritesh Singh, Hari Singh and Raj Narayan Pandey in Case Crime No. 167 of 2021 u/s 302, 120B IPC relating to Police Station Bairiya, District Ballia.
3. Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 255 of 2022 is filed by the State of U.P. seeking cancellation of bail granted to opposite party/ accused Shabal Singh @ Amritesh Singh by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Ballia vide its order dated 05.08.2021 in the above noted case passed in Bail Application No. 1426/2021.
4. Opposite parties/accused Hari Singh and Raj Narayan Pandey were granted bail by the learned In-charge Additional Session Judge, Ballia vide the order dated 28.04.2022 in the above noted case passed in Bail Applications No. 2324/2021 and 95/2022 respectively.
5. Since all the bail cancellation applications relate to same crime number and same set of facts, therefore, these applications are being decided by this common order.
6. The facts of the case are that the applicant/complainant Nitesh Kumar Singh lodged the first information report in Police Station Bairiya, District Ballia, on 07.07.2021 mentioning therein that on 07.07.2021, his elder brother Jaleshwar Singh @ Balbeer Singh along with Shabal Singh @ Amritesh Singh, who was known to him, was returning in his private vehicle after visiting his friend. At around 12.00 noon the car was stopped at the shop of Jauhar Mistri. Five persons riding two motorcycles came there and fired upon his elder brother. On receiving this information, the informant rushed towards the place of occurrence and found that his brother was still alive at that time. When he, along with some other persons, was taking his brother to Sonbarsa Hospital, his brother told him that Harish Paswan S/O Indradev Paswan, R/O Babubel, Police Station Haldi, Hari Singh S/O late Kedar Singh R/O Bairiya and Raj Narayan Pandey S/O late Singar Pandey R/O Bairiya accompanied by two unknown persons had shot him. His brother also told him that Shabal Singh @ Amritesh Singh committed conspiracy to kill him. As soon as he reached the hospital, the doctors declared his brother dead.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned Government Counsel for the State of U. P. argued that on 14.08.2021 i.e. after the release on bail pursuant to impugned bail orders, the opposite parties namely Shabal Singh @ Amritesh Singh, Harish Paswan and Hari Singh gave threats of causing death or grievous hurt to Amit Kumar Varma, who is the witness of inquest proceedings of the deceased and also the Pairokar of the informant. First information report having crime No.207 of 2021 was registered on 15.08.2021 against them under Section 506, 507 of IPC at Police Station, Bairiya District Ballia. A charge sheet came to be filed against them except Harish Paswan, since he was killed in the police encounter on 03.09.2021. This act of the opposite parties demonstrate that they had misused the liberty of bail granted to them. They would adversely affect the fair trial and they would tamper the evidence proposed to be produced against them during the trial. There is strong apprehension of killing of the applicant as well as the witnesses of the prosecution by these persons/opposite parti
SupremeToday
Point of Law : Trial Court passed the impugned bail orders taking into consideration incorrect facts of case, all bail cancellation applications deserve to be allowed.
The court emphasized that bail should be denied if the accused's conduct poses a risk to the judicial process, particularly in cases involving serious offences and repeated criminal activity.
Grant of Bail - Bail is a right and denial is an exception' but it does not mean that the bail should be granted in every case.
Repeated offenders who commit crimes while on bail should not be granted bail, and the trial should be expedited. The nature of offenses and the general conduct of the accused are crucial factors in ....
Cancellation of bail requires substantial grounds indicating misuse or misconduct; mere allegations of injustice without evidence do not suffice for revocation.
The legal principle established is that strong and cogent reasons are required to deprive the liberty of an accused, and the prescribed procedure for seeking arrest or cancellation of bail must be fo....
Bail granted based on misleading information can be revoked to uphold judicial integrity and ensure accurate legal proceedings.
Cancellation of bail requires compelling evidence of misconduct or supervening circumstances affecting fairness of trial; mere subsequent offenses do not suffice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
