# Bharat Singh v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1226
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-01
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. IInd Bail Cancellation Application No. 38682 of 2023
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bharat-singh-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-51549
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148,
149, 302, 307, 506, 120-B - Second Bail
Application - Criminal Conspiracy - Hardened
Criminal - Exploitation of Legal Loopholes
The applicant, Bharat Singh, sought bail in Case
Crime No. 344 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148,
149, 302, 307, 506, and 120-B IPC, Police
Station Sector-Nawabad, District Jhansi, for
allegedly conspiring to murder Sanjay Verma on
21.07.2018. The FIR, lodged by Sanchit Verma,
detailed an ambush where assailants fired at
Sanjay Verma's car, killing one guard and
injuring others. The applicant, not named in the
FIR, was implicated through witness St.ments
recorded post-incident, alleging he conspired
with co-accused in 2017. The applicant argued
false implication, delayed witness St.ments,
weak
evidence,
and
over
five
years
of
incarceration, claiming "bail is the rule, jail is the
exception." The prosecution highlighted the
applicant's criminal history (27 cases, convicted
in three, including a prior murder of the victim's
brother), his family's criminal involvement, and
the rejection of a co-accused's bail by the
Supreme Court. Held: The court, citing Vinod
Kumar Vs St. of Punj. ((2015) 3 SCC 220) and
Hussain Vs Union of India ((2017) 5 SCC 702),
rejected the bail application, emphasizing the
applicant's extensive criminal history and the
case falling under the "exception" to the bail
principle due to the risk of tampering with
evidence and repeating offenses. The court
noted the societal harm caused by hardened
criminals exploiting legal loopholes, undermining
public trust, and directed the trial court to
expedite proceedings.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

1226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
learned
Advocate General and the
Principal Secretary (Law), U.P. Lucknow.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1226
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Crl. Misc. IInd Bail Cancellation Application No.
38682 of 2023

Bharat Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ravikant Shukla

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A., Sri Deepak Dubey

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148,
149, 302, 307, 506, 120-B - Second Bail
Application - Criminal Conspiracy - Hardened
Criminal - Exploitation of Legal Loopholes
The applicant, Bharat Singh, sought bail in Case
Crime No. 344 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148,
149, 302, 307, 506, and 120-B IPC, Police
Station Sector-Nawabad, District Jhansi, for
allegedly conspiring to murder Sanjay Verma on
21.07.2018. The FIR, lodged by Sanchit Verma,
detailed an ambush where assailants fired at
Sanjay Verma's car, killing one guard and
injuring others. The applicant, not named in the
FIR, was implicated through witness St.ments
recorded post-incident, alleging he conspired
with co-accused in 2017. The applicant argued
false implication, delayed witness St.ments,
weak
evidence,
and
over
five
years
of
incarceration, claiming "bail is the rule, jail is the
exception." The prosecution highlighted the
applicant's criminal history (27 cases, convicted
in three, including a prior murder of the victim's
brother), his family's criminal involvement, and
the rejection of a co-accused's bail by the
Supreme Court. Held: The court, citing Vinod
Kumar Vs St. of Punj. ((2015) 3 SCC 220) and
Hussain Vs Union of India ((2017) 5 SCC 702),
rejected the bail application, emphasizing the
applicant's extensive criminal history and the
case falling under the "exception" to the bail
principle due to the risk of tampering with
evidence and repeating offenses. The court
noted the societal harm caused by hardened
criminals exploiting legal loopholes, undermining
public trust, and directed the trial court to
expedite proceedings.

Case Law Cited:

1. Vinod Kumar Vs St. of Punj., (2015) 3 SCC
220

2. Hussain Vs Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Ravikant Shukla, learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak
Dubey, learned counsel for the informant
and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned
A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the
material placed on record.

3. This is the second bail application
on behalf of the applicant. The first
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27318
of 2020 has been dismissed by this Court as
not pressed vide order dated 21.02.2023.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime
No.344 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148,
149, 302, 307, 506 and 120-B, Police
Station Sector- Nawabad, District Jhansi,
during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The FIR was instituted by Sanchit
Verma, son of Shri Sanjay Verma, stating
therein that today on 21.7.2018 at about
11:00 A.M. he along with his father had
gone to Court. His father had to attend his
case in the Court of District Judge, Jhansi,
3 All. Bharat Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1227
and Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhansi.
At about 1:30 P.M., his father left the Court
premises by his Pajero Sports Car No. UP
93AN 6301, which was being driven by
Ravi Varma. His father was accompanied
by his guards Jai Goswami and Sunil
Kushwaha.

6. In the meantime, after about two
minutes, it was observed that the car was
being followed by a motorcycle driven by
Ajay Sony. Near a temple, truck No. UP
93T 8047 was found parked along with a
loader No. UP 93AT 3437. Hiding behind
the said vehicles, the accused persons
namely, Sonu Geda, Rinku Geda, Bobi
Geda, Angad Gurjar, Prahlad Gurjar,
Udham Gurjar, Rajendra Gurjar, Shivam
Gurjar and Pushpendra Gurjar, came out
with firearm weapons and started firing
indiscriminately at the passengers in the
car, which hit the driver of the vehicle
resulting in it colliding with the loader and
truck. The father of the informant and the
persons seated in the vehicle sustained life
threatening gunshot wounds.

7. The assailants sped away on
motorcycles firing in air. The injured
persons were rushed to Medical College
Jhansi, where they are being treated and
doctors had declared Jai Goswami dead.
The accused persons, namely, Rinku Geda,
Sonu Geda, Sardar Singh and others, had
earlier caused the death of the uncle of the
informant Ajay Verma and were convicted
in it. The said conviction was sustained by
the High Court, Allahabad and even the
writ petition filed by Man Singh was
dismissed by the Supreme Court. The
aforesaid accused persons had earlier on
also failed in attempt to commit murder of
the father of the informant several times.

8. The instant F.I.R. was instituted at
police station at 09:57 P.M. the same night.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS:

(Arguments on behalf of applicant)

9. The applicant is not named in the
FIR. The name of the applicant has come
up later in the statement of two witnesses
i.e. Vijay Sony and Sanjiv Gupta regarding
the applicant having hatched the conspiracy
to commit the murder of the father of the
informant. The said statement is an
afterthought and the witnesses have been
roped in after legal consultation, just to get
the applicant languishing in jail.

10. The Investigating Officer without
conducting proper, fair investigation and in
a lethargic manner, has illegally submitted
the final report (charge-sheet) against the
applicant also of having committed the
criminal conspiracy for getting the murder
of the father of the informant.

11. The said witnesses are stated to
have heard the applicant and co-accused
persons, namely, Sardar Singh Gurjar and
Rav Raja, on 03.08.2017 at the compound
of Civil Court conspiring to get Sanjay
Verma eliminated. The said offence is
stated to have been committed after a
period of almost 1 year i.e. on 21.7.2018.
The statements of the witnesses have been
recorded after the offence and not during
the intervening period of conspiracy and
murder.

12. It is pertinent to mention here that
the delay in recording the statement of the
witnesses speaks volume of frivolous
prosecution of the applicant. The motive of
false implication is mentioned in the said
statement as both the parties carried an
animosity with the applicant as he is
already convicted in the murder of the
uncle of the informant.

13. The 'bail' is the rule and 'jail' is an
exception. The applicant is in jail since
1228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
18.10.2018. The period of incarceration
being more than five years is itself a valid
ground for release of the applicant that too
in an offence of conspiracy only.

14. Five witnesses have already been
examined and there is no tangible or
credible evidence against the applicant and
there is no chance of him absconding or
tampering with evidence. The statement of
prosecution witness Sanjeev Gupta (P.W.4)
does not inspire any confidence as it is full
of contractions and is filled up with
embellishments.

15. The prosecution witnesses have
stated that the applicant was handcuffed at
the time he saw and heard them hatching
the said conspiracy, which stands falsified
from the facts that applicant was brought
without being handcuffed as is evident
from the order of the Special Judge
(Gangster's Act), which has been filed as
Annexure No.9 to the affidavit filed with
the instant bail application.

16. The applicant is an aged person of
77 years and there is no likelihood of him
repeating the offence.

17. The criminal history of twenty
seven (27) cases assigned to the applicant
stands explained as he has been acquitted in
twenty (20) of the cases and proceedings in
the case under the National Security Act
have been dropped. The applicant has been
enlarged on bail in three (3) cases and is
convicted in the other three (3) cases.

(Arguments
on
behalf
of
State/Informant)

18. The applicant was a convicted
person in Case Crime No.1463 of 2006,
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302
I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act
vide judgement and order dated 20.8.2009.
The Criminal Appeal against the said order
of conviction was dismissed by this Court
vide judgment and order dated 12.9.2017.
An S.L.P. filed by applicant Bharat Singh
was also dismissed by the Supreme Court.

19.

The
Government
Order
No.324/2023/1442/22-2-2023-17(4999)
dated 12.06.2023 was passed for premature
release of applicant under Section 2 of the
Provisions of U.P. Prisoners Release on
Probation Act, 1938 (Act 8 of 1938), as the
applicant had forged his aged to be 77 years
while his actual age is about 60 years, as is
evident from the voter ID card issued by
the State Election Commission, Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow. The said order of
remission is under challenge before the
High Court and it is pertinent to add that
the remission order of co-accused Man
Singh Gurjar has been set-aside by this
Court vide order dated 19.04.2023.

20. The applicant and his family are a
bunch
of
hardened
criminals
being
involved in about twenty nine (29) cases in
all. The criminal history of the applicant
has been filed as Annexure No.CA-7 to the
Short Counter Affidavit filed with the bail
application. The applicant is a previous
convict in three (3) cases and in one of the
cases, the conviction has been affirmed up
to the Supreme Court.

21. The bail application of the coaccused Rav Raja, whose case is on the
similar footing to the applicant, has been
rejected by the Supreme Court vide its
order dated 29.10.2021 passed in S.L.P.
(Criminal) Diary No(s). 24115/2021.

22. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed
the bail application and reiterated the
averments of counsel for the informant.

CONCLUSION:
3 All. Bharat Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1229

23. The phrase "Bail is the rule and
Jail is an exception" underscores the
principle that individuals are presumed
innocent until proven guilty. In this context,
"jail as an exception" refers to the
situations where a person's pre-trial liberty
is restricted due to specific circumstances.
These exceptions might include concerns
about flight risk, potential danger to the
community, the likelihood of the accused
tampering with evidence, or possibility of
repeating offence. Essentially, while bail is
generally
favoured
to
ensure
the
presumption of innocence, exceptions exist
when there are compelling reasons to
detain someone before trial.

24. The criminal justice system is
designed to maintain order, protect citizens,
and
ensure
that
wrongdoers
face
consequences for their actions. However,
an alarming trend has emerged where
hardened criminals exploit loopholes in
legal
proceedings,
capitalize
on
ambiguities,
procedural
errors,
or
inadequacies in legislation to evade the full
force
of
the
law. Whether
through
technicalities, or delays, these individuals
navigate
a
legal
landscape
that
inadvertently
provides
them
with
opportunities
to
escape
justice.
The
exploitation of legal loopholes undermines
public confidence in the criminal justice
system. Victims may feel betrayed, and
communities may lose faith in the ability of
the legal framework to protect them.
Additionally, this phenomenon perpetuates
a cycle of crime, as criminals observe and
learn from successful manoeuvres within
the legal system.

25. Striking a balance between
efficiency and justice remains a challenging
aspect of legal proceedings. Taking case of
the issue of hardened criminals exploiting
legal loopholes is crucial for upholding the
principles of justice and maintaining public
trust in the legal system, through proactive
legal reforms, technological advancements,
and ongoing professional development, we
can create a more resilient framework that
minimizes opportunities for criminals to
escape accountability. It is imperative that
society remains vigilant in its pursuit of a
fair and effective criminal justice system.

26. The applicant was convicted for
the murder of the brother of one of the
victims of the instant incident and the same
is the motive for committing the instant
offence. He is a previous convict in two
other cases. Here the long criminal history
of the applicant is an important factor
which goes against him.

27. The instant case falls in the
category of "exception" as mentioned in the
old saying "Bail is the rule, and Jail is an
exception". Hence, the bail to the applicant
is declined and is, accordingly, rejected.

28. However, it is directed that the
aforesaid case pending before the trial court
be decided expeditiously as early as
possible in view of the principle as has
been laid down in the recent judgments of
the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod
Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC
220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of
India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no
legal impediment.

29. It is clarified that the observations
made herein are limited to the facts brought
in by the parties pertaining to the disposal
of
bail
application
and
the
said
observations shall have no bearing on the
merits of the case during trial.
1230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1230
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 44594
of 2023

Kamlesh Pathak ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vijai Prakash Yadav, Sri Saghir Ahmad
(Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A., Sri Anurag Shukla, Sri Dharmendra
Shukla, Sri Saurabh Pathak, Sri Anil Tiwari
(Sr. Advocate)

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - U.P.
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 3(1),
19(4)(b) & 12 - Second Bail Application -
Criminal History - Gang Leader - Mandatory Bail
Conditions - The applicant, Kamlesh Pathak, an
Ex-MLC, sought bail in Case Crime No. 462 of
2020 under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986,
Police Station Auraiya, District Auraiya, linked to
two cases involving double murder and attempt
to murder (Case Crime Nos. 189 and 196 of
2020). The FIR alleged that the applicant, as a
gang leader, engaged in extortion, illegal land
encroachment, assault, and firing to maintain
dominance, notably in the daylight murder of an
advocate and his sister to grab temple land. The
applicant, with a criminal history of 37 cases
since 1974 (8 acquitted, 13 closed, 7 withdrawn,
2 unnoticed, 2 preventive, 1 decided, 4
pending), argued prolonged detention since
14.07.2020, bail in other cases, and parity with
a co-accused. The prosecution highlighted the
applicant's influence, pending SLPs against his
bail in the murder case, and the risk of witness
tampering. Held: The court, citing Neeru Yadav
Vs St. of U.P. ((2015) 3 SCC 527), Sudha Singh
Vs St. of U.P. ((2021) 4 SCC 781), Indresh
Kumar Vs St. of U.P. (2022 Live Law (SC) 610),
Deepak Yadav Vs St. of U.P. ((2022) 8 SCC
559), and Dharmendra Kirthal Vs St. of U.P.
((2013)
8
SCC
368),
rejected
the
bail
application.
The
court
emphasized
the
applicant's
extensive
criminal
history,
the
mandatory conditions under Section 19(4)(b) of
the Gangsters Act requiring reasonable grounds
to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely
to reoffend, and the societal threat posed by the
applicant. Parity was dismissed as the coaccused's bail ignored Section 19(4)(b). The
court directed expeditious trial under Section 12
of the Act and Section 309 Cr.P.C., prioritizing
the Gangsters Act case.

Case Law Cited:

1. Neeru Yadav Vs St. of U.P., (2015) 3 SCC 527

2. Sudha Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 781

3. Indresh Kumar Vs St. of U.P., 2022 Live Law
(SC) 610

4. Deepak Yadav Vs St. of U.P., (2022) 8 SCC
559

5. Dharmendra Kirthal Vs St. of U.P., (2013) 8
SCC 368

6. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC
22 (distinguished)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

1- Heard Mr. Saghir Ahmad, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Raghav
Arora, learned counsel for the applicant,
Mr. Arbind Kumar, Mr. Deepak Mishra
and Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned
Additional
Government
Advocates
appearing for the State of U.P. as well as
Mr. Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Anurag Shukla, learned