Manish Kumar Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

The instant First Bail Application is preferred on behalf of the applicant ‘Manish Kumar Singh’ S/o Rajnarayan Singh for seeking regular bail in connection with a First Information Report dated 17.06.2024 bearing FIR No. 0236 of 2024 P.S. Raipur, District Dehradun, lodged by one Sachin Chhetri against six persons namely Devendra Kumar Sharma @ Sonu, Monu Bhardwaj, Ramveer, Yogesh, Manish (present applicant) and Ankush.

As per the FIR, on 16.06.2024 at about 10:00 to 11:00 PM in night the brother of the informant Subhash Chhetri with one Deepak Badola went to the house of Devendra Kumar Sharma @ Sonu Bhardwaj and his brother Monu Bhardwaj in a vehicle “Tata Safari” of Deepak Badola and one Sagar Yadav (Shambhu Yadav) r/o Nehru Gram parked this vehicle in front of the house of Sonu Bhardwaj and Monu Bhardwaj and in the meantime Sonu Bhardwaj and his associates Ramveer, Yogesh, Manish and Ankush indiscriminately opened fire due to which the brother of the informant Subhash Chhetri sustained bullet injury and he was seriously injured and one another Manoj Negi S/o Gabbar Singh also sustained bullet injury, who also grievously injured and immediately Sonu Bhardwaj was taken to Kailash Hospital and Manoj Negi taken to Doon Hospital for treatment.

After this incident a dead body was found near a Petrol Pump located at Dobhal Chowk, which was subsequently identified and it was found that the dead body is of one Deepak Badola, who was killed also by fire arm. Consequently, section 302 of IPC was added. On 18.06.2024 on an information of a Mukhbir in an encounter the present applicant and the another accused Yogesh were arrested with illegal arms and subsequently a Case Crime No. 290 of 2024 was lodged against Manish and Yogesh on 19.06.2024 at P.S. Bahadarabad (Haridwar) for the offences punishable under section 307 of IPC r/w section 25/30 of Arms Act. In the meantime, on 18.06.2024 another accused Ankush S/o Babu Ram was also arrested and subsequently one more person namely Ramveer was also arrested from Village Talwad P.S. Bahrod Sadar of District Kotputli, Rajasthan.

On completion of investigation in total eight persons were chargesheeted. The present applicant and co-accused Ramveer have been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 201, 120B of IPC r/w section 3/25/27 of Arms Act. The other co-accused namely Devendra Sharma @ Sonu Bhardwaj, Harish Kumar Sharma @ Monu Bhardwaqj, Sagar @ Shambhu Yadav S/o Dinesh Yadav, Yogesh S/o Jeet Singh and Ankush S/o Babu Ram have also been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 201 and 120B of IPC and one another co-accused Shalu Bhardwaj D/o Vinod Bhardwaj is also chargesheeted for the offence punishable under section 212 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant Manish Kumar Singh is innocent and has been falsely implicated and no specific role has been assigned to him with regard to the alleged offence. He also submits that there is no independent eye witness of the alleged recovery and so called recovery has been shown in the presence of the police officials in an encounter, which makes prosecution story highly doubtful. He also submits that the complainant himself is not the eye witness of the alleged incident and the entire incident is based on the hearsay and suspicion. He also submits that the applicant has no motive to commit this crime and at the time of arrest no ground of arrest was communicated, which is in a clear violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. He also submits that the charge-sheet is already filed and, therefore, there is no need of further interrogation. He also submits that the applicant is not previously convicted and undertakes that he will not tamper with the prosecution evidence or to influence the witnesses during bail. He also submits that the applicant is in judicial custody since 18.06.2024 and taking into consideration that he already suffered incarceration of more than two years he be enlarged on bail.

In addition to this, he further argued that other co-accused namely Ankush, Yogesh, Sagar Yadav @ Shambhu Yadav, Harish Kumar Sharma and Devendra Kumar Sharma @ Sonu Bhardwaj have already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench by separate orders, copy of which are already enclosed.

Finally, he concluded his argument by submitting that as per the charge-sheet there are as many as 39 prosecution witnesses but only one witness has been examined so far, therefore, there is no possibility that the trial would be expedited soon and, therefore, taking into consideration that the applicant suffered incarceration of more than two years and there is no substantial progress in the trial and the other co-accused are enlarged on bail, the applicant be also released on bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that firstly the entire incident is caused by the present applicant in association with the other co-accused persons in a very well organized manner and at the first instance two persons were seriously injured due to fire arm injury caused by the applicant in association with other co-accused and after committing this incident they ran away and during this the applicant with the other co-accused Ramveer make an attempt to attack on police personnels and their car also got damaged and then they reached in Transport Nagar from where they hire taxi and gone to Mujjafarnagar and in a second instance in a police encounter they also sustain fire arm injury in their leg fired from police team and during this intervening period Deepak Badola was seriously injured and the applicant with Yogesh make an attempt to pick him also and then again fire four rounds and threw his dead body in a Nala.

Learned A.G.A. submits that the entire incident was very well organized and the present applicant and one Ramveer are the main persons, who actively participate in commission of crime. He submits that the other co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench, are also actively involved in association with the present applicant and Ramveer to commit this crime, however, the benefit of parity cannot be given to the present applicant since applicant’s role is more serious. He also submits that during his confessional statement he narrated the entire story, on perusal of which it reveals that the present applicant take active role in this incident. He also submits that not only this even this applicant along with other co-accused also fire on police team, therefore, if the applicant at this stage is enlarged on bail it is not in the interest of society and furthermore there are all possibilities that he may tamper with the evidence in association with the other co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench.

Apart from this, learned A.G.A. submits that there is a recovery of fire arm used in the commission of crime on pointing out of the present applicant and the co-accused Ramveer. Apart from this, learned A.G.A. also pointed out that the injuries sustained by the injured Manoj Negi and Subhash Chhetri are also enclosed in the objection and the bullet from their body were not taken out as it may danger to their life as admit by the Doctor Sukhwinder Singh in his statement, which are also on record.

Heard at length. Peruse the record as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the prosecution. I also peruse the entire chargesheet including the injury report and the statement of the Doctor. The manner in which this crime was committed by eight persons was very well organized and the present applicant took very active role in causing fire arm injury to the two injured and one deceased. There is a recovery on the pointing of the present applicant and other co-accused Ramveer of the fire arm.

At this juncture, the plea of learned counsel for the applicant that there is no substantial progress in the trial and there are as many as 39 prosecution witnesses and uptill date only one witness has been examined. In reference to this aspect, learned A.G.A. pointed out that the present applicant have also criminal antecedent, which has been disclosed in the counter affidavit i.e. Case Crime No. 73 of 2024 relating to the offence punishable under sections 307, 353, 427 and 34 of IPC, P.S. Clementown, District Dehradun, and another Case Crime No. 255 of 2024, which pertains to section ¾ of Gangster Act, P.S. Raipur, District Dehradun. By referring the criminal history it is argued by learned A.G.A. that the applicant is indulged in criminal activity in Dehradun since last 2 to 3 years, therefore, at this juncture, the applicant should not be enlarged on bail and, therefore, on this account alone that there is no substantial progress in the trial and the applicant suffered incarceration of more than two years, the applicant does not deserve for bail, however, at this juncture, the Trial Court may be directed to expedite the trial.

No doubt, the Coordinate Bench grant bail to the other co-accused and I peruse all the orders and however there is no deliberations with regard to the role of the accused persons, therefore, firstly the applicant does not deserve to get the benefit of parity of other co-accused who are on bail. So far as the present applicant is concerned, there are two injured and one deceased. There are the confessional statement of the other co-accused also including the present applicant and there are the evidences with regard to open fire on the police personnel while fleeing from the spot. The injury report also reveals that the injuries are serious and I also peruse the post-mortem of the deceased and, therefore, taking into consideration that the crime was committed in a very well planned and organized manner and the applicant take active role, therefore, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

In view of the discussions as above, the instant bail application is rejected. However, the Trial Court is directed to make all possible efforts to expedite the trial as early as possible preferably within nine months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order forthwith to the concerned Trial Court for necessary compliance.