Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
Rajan Roy, J.
Satyam Patel @ Rocky – Applicant
Versus
Union Of India Through C.B.I. – Respondent
Criminal misc. Bail application No. - 934 of 2020
Decided On : 22-06-2022
BAIL - Criminal Conspiracy - Sections 302, 120-B, 201 IPC - [Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure] - [302, 120-B, 201 IPC]
Fact of the Case:
The applicant is seeking bail in a case involving the murder of Shrawan Sahu, allegedly orchestrated by Akeel Ansari. The prosecution alleges that the applicant, along with others, conspired to eliminate Shrawan Sahu and carried out the murder in an organized manner. The applicant has been in jail for five years and argues that the trial is unlikely to conclude soon. The alleged eye-witnesses have not supported the prosecution's story, and there are discrepancies in the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the gravity of the offence, the sequence of events, and the evidence collected by the CBI point towards the applicant's involvement. The court notes that the trial is pending with many witnesses yet to be examined, but rejects the bail application, directing the Trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude it within one and a half years.
Issues: The main issues include the gravity of the offence, the likelihood of the trial concluding soon, the reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution, and the potential influence of the applicant on the trial and witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision is based on the gravity of the offence, the sequence of events, and the evidence collected by the CBI, which prima facie point towards the applicant's involvement. The court also considers the pending trial and the potential influence of the applicant on the trial and witnesses.
Final Decision: The bail application is rejected, and the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it within one and a half years.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the CBI.
2. This is an application for bail under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to Sessions Trial No. 977 of 2017 (Crime No. 52 of 2017), R.C. No. 0532017S0004, under Sections 302, 120-B, 201 IPC, Police Station CBI/ACB, District Lucknow.
3. Facts of the case are that one Ayush Sahu son of Shrawan Sahau was allegedly killed by Akeel Anasari and Azeem @ Babu on 16.10.2013. An F.I.R. was lodged by the deceased's father Shrawan Sahu wherein charge-sheet was filed against the aforesaid persons and others in 2014. Shrawan Sahu, father and informant was pursuing the said case. Akeel Ansari who allegedly has a criminal history of 17 cases hired contract killers allegedly belonging to Munna Bajrangi gang to kill Shrawan Sahu but before they could carry out the crime, the shooters were caught and a case Crime No. 57 of 2016, under Sections 307, 115, 120-B IPC against Akeel Ansari and others was lodged at Police Station Saadatganj, District Lucknow. Charge-sheet was also filed against the accused in the said case. As per the prosecution story, Akeel Ansari, who was on bail used to threaten Shrawan Sahu with dire consequences, if he continued to pursue the case involving the murder of his son Ayush Sahu. The accused Akeel Ansari on 12.01.2017 put a weapon on Shrawan Sahu's neck and again threatened him not to do pairvi of the said case. This led to lodging of an F.I.R. at case Crime No. 9 of 2017, under Sections 147, 506 IPC against Akeel Ansari and others by Shrawan Sahu. It is said that on 09.01.2017 the applicant herein Satyam Patel @ Rocky was arrested by the police of Police Station Thakurganj in connection with a criminal case in which charge-sheet was filed under Section 3/25 Arms Act read with Section 419 IPC. One country-made pistol with two live cartridges were recovered. The applicant was released on bail on 13.01.2017 in the aforesaid case under Arms Act, etc. and two persons, namely, Chand Babu and Mohd. Shabi Ansari stood surety for him. These two persons according to the prosecution were asked by Akeel Ansari to stand surety for the applicant for securing bail.
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that Akeel Ansari hatched a criminal conspiracy along with Satyam Patel (applicant), Aman Singh, Ajay Patel, Rohit Mishra, Vivek Verma, etc. in the house of the applicant Satyam Patel at Shivpuri Colony, Picnic Spot, Indira Nagar, Lucknow to eliminate Shrawan Sahu. In furtherance of this criminal conspiracy recce of house of Shrawan Sahu was carried out by Satyam Patel and Aman Singh. Vivek Verma, co-accused, provided an unnumbered black bajaj pulsar 220 motorcycle for transportation of the aforesaid two accused. Arms and ammunition were also arranged.
5. Akeel Ansari surrendered in Court in connection with a criminal case and went to jail on 27.01.2017.
6. It is alleged that on 01.02.2017, Satyam Patel and Aman Singh duly armed rode the motorcycle of Vivek Verma and reached Saadatganj area around 8 PM. Aman Singh was driving the motorcycle with helmet on his head and Satyam Patel was the pillion rider. They passed through the front of house and shop of Shrawan Sahu coming from Dargah Hazrat side to Bada Chauraha of Saadatganj, Lucknow and after few minutes they took another round of the house and shop of Shrawan Sahu on the motorcycle coming from Bada Chauraha side and going towards Dargah Hazrat side. Then they again came on the motorcycle form Dargah side moving towards Bada Chauraha. Aman Singh stopped the motorcycle. Satyam Patel got down from the motorcycle with helmet in his hand then Aman took the motorcycle towards Bada Chauraha. Satyam i.e. the applicant, walked towards the shop of Shrawan Sahu, put on the helmet on his head then took out the revolver with his right hand, entered the shop of Sri Shrawan Sahu and fired five bullets at him. He came out of the shop with revolver in hand and w
The heinousness of the offense, evidence available on record, and the accused-applicants' criminal history were central to the court's decision in rejecting the bail applications.
The court ruled that the applicant, as the prime accused in serious offences, cannot be granted bail due to the risk of trial tampering and his history of absconding, despite delays in the trial proc....
The conduct of the accused, including making calls to witnesses and their subsequent turning hostile, raised strong presumption against the accused, influencing the court's decision to dismiss the ba....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail was influenced by the lack of specific allegations, absence of corroborative evidence, and inconclusive electronic evidence ....
Though liberty is a greatly cherished value in life of an individual, it is a controlled and restricted one and no element in society can act in a manner by consequence of which life or liberty of ot....
Bail under the U.A.P. Act requires prima facie assessment of allegations; long custody or parity with co-accused do not automatically justify release.
Insufficient prima facie evidence to link the applicant to organized crime syndicate warrants bail under MCOCA's stringent conditions.
The court established that in cases involving serious charges such as murder and conspiracy, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate why bail should be granted, especially in light of substanti....
The severity of the crime, the criminal record of the applicant, and the possibility of influencing witnesses are significant factors in determining bail eligibility.
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
