9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceased (Daansingh) to the killers. There has been an evident error on the part of the High Court in surmising that no specific or overt act is attributed to the second Respondent. As regards the co-Accused Vijaypal, it has been submitted that during the course of the investigation he was not found to be present at the scene of the offence and was not charge-sheeted. In deciding as to whether the fifth bail application of the second Respondent should be allowed, the High Court has failed to consider the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the specific role which is attributed to the second Respondent. The deceased was due to testify in the trial in the prior case Under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the murder was committed barely a fortnight prior to the date on which he was to depose. The High Court had rejected four previous bail applications. There was no change in circumstances. In this backdrop, the High Court having failed to notice material circumstances bearing upon the grant of bail to the second Respondent and, as noted, having proceeded on a palpable erroneous basis, a case for the setting aside of the order of the High Court has been duly established. Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce and conclusion of trial will take time, hence, I deem it proper to allow the fifth bail application. 3. The Appellant is the son of the deceased-Daansingh-who was the Sarpanch of the village. It has been alleged that there was a prior enmity between the Accused and the deceased, as a consequence of which the husband of the second Respondent together with certain other members of his family and sharp shooters shot at Daansingh in September 2015. Daansingh survived the incident. FIR No. 466 of 2015 Under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Kumher. The second Respondent was arrested and charge-sheeted. The evidence of Daansingh was to be recorded at the criminal trial. A fortnight prior to the recording of his evidence, Daansingh was murdered on 11 September 2017. 4. On 12 September 2017, FIR No. 732 of 2017 was registered at Police Station Mathuraghat by the brother of the Appellant for offences punishable Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 302 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act 1959. The second Respondent was arrested on 3 October 2017. After investigation, the final report Under Section 173 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bail applications have been rejected and there was no change in the circumstances to warrant the grant of bail; (iv) No parity could be claimed with the co-Accused Vijaypal since he has not been charge-sheeted; (v) The investigation has revealed that the deceased was murdered with the aid of a hired sharp-shooter shortly before he was to depose at the criminal trial in the case arising out of FIR No. 466 of 2015 Under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code; (vi) The second Respondent, as the prosecution alleges, was following the car of the deceased and was providing instructions about his location to the sharpshooter; and (vii) Even the brother of the Appellant, Gopal Singh, was assaulted shortly before his testimony was to be recorded. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Sood, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the second Respondent submitted that: (i) The incident took place outside the house of the deceased in which event, the role attributed to the second Respondent is rendered meaningless; (ii) There has been a clear over-implication of members of the family in the FIR since as many as six persons are alleged to have shot at the deceased whereas only two bullets were recovered; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect, the charge-sheet contains the following details in regard to the use of the mobile numbers of the second Respondent: From them analysis of these Call Details, following facts have come to light: 1. Mobile Number: [xxxxxxxx00] (Omvati): The Call details of this Mobile Number were procured from date 01.08.2017 onwards until the date of occurrence of the case incident and found that said number was active until the date 09.09.2017 after the aforesaid date of 01.08.2017 and its corresponding IMEI Number was found to be [xxxxxxxxxxxx810]. It has also come to light that after said date 09.09.2017, in said mobile phone of IMEI: [xxxxxxxxxxxx810], some other SIM was found to be active or not to find out the same, the Call Details corresponding to said IMEI No. [xxxxxxxxxxxx810] was obtained for Mobile Number [xxxxxxxx36] in the course of which it came to be known that said Mobile Number was active until the date of incident 11.09.2017. 2. Mobile Number [xxxxxxxx36] (Omvati): Mobile Number [xxxxxxxx36] related SIM Card was found to have been issued in the name of Guddi wife of Shri Lalsingh, R/o; Sabaura, District: Bharatpur, Omvati has used the Mobile Phone of IMEI No: [xxxxxxxxxxxx ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of occurrence of this case incident, its location was traced as Ashok Vihar, Subhash Nagar, Bharatpur, Kumher, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur, Near Railway Station Bharatpur etc. 15. The charge-sheet contains an analysis of the call data records. Apart from the material drawn from the call data records, it has been found during the course of the investigation that in order to purchase the fire arms for the crime, Ratan Singh, the husband of the second Respondent, had paid an advance of Rs. 40,000 to Prahlad. Prahlad had brought three katas and ten cartridges. The weapons were kept in a room by Anek Singh at Bharatpur in which the second Respondent was residing on a rental basis. Moreover, there is a specific allegation that the second Respondent has actively aided the commission of the crime by furnishing information about the movements of the deceased (Daansingh) to the killers. There has been an evident error on the part of the High Court in surmising that no specific or overt act is attributed to the second Respondent. As regards the co-Accused Vijaypal, it has been submitted that during the course of the investigation he was not found to be present at the scene of the offence and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the Accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the Accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. *** 10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal. [...] 15. The decision of this Court in Prasanta [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] has been consistently followed by this Court in Ash Mohammad v. Shi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
