# Praveen v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1277
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-14
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 13444 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/praveen-v-state-of-u-p-52032
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Bail application- Applicant-
Allegation of shooting dead a businessman
by multiple close range firearm shots-
Conspiracy unearthed- Main conspirator
and co-accused bail application rejected-
Some other co-accused persons granted
1278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bail-
Established
principles
of
jurisprudence of bail- Relevant factors for
consideration
of
bail
application-
reiterated- Parity with other co-accused
persons rejected- Practice of engaging a
new
advocate-
Object
of
obtaining
adjournment-
discouraged-
Application
dismissed. (Paras 8 and 12)

HELD:
I have considered the above mentioned rival
submissions in referred factual and legal
backgrounds and in view of established principle
of jurisprudence of bail i.e. 'bail is rule and jail is
exception' as well as relevant factors for
consideration of a bail application such as (i)
whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had
committed 5 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;
(viii) danger, of course of justice being thwarted
by grant of bail etc, and that an order to grant or
not to grant bail must assigned reasons. (Para 8)

A practice to engage a new Advocate by an
applicant through his pairokar on date of hearing
or few days back, only with an object to take an
adjournment, specifically in bail applications,
which has already been adjourned repeatedly on
earlier dates on request of counsel for applicant,
is liable to be discouraged. It is duty of an
Advocate to expedite hearing of a bail application
and not to prolong it. (Para 12)

Application dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Praveen Vs. State of U.P.
1277
should be of a family member) is an onerous
one in the facts and circumstances of this
case.

6. In the wake of preceding discussion
the modification application is allowed. The
surety conditions put by this Court in the
order dated 18.05.2023 to the effect that
(one should be of a family member) as
sureties is recalled. The matter is remitted to
the trial court. The trial court shall fix
sureties as per socioeconomic conditions of
the applicant and in light of the observations
made above.

7. While fixing sureties the trial court
has to apply its mind to the socioeconomic
conditions of the prisoner. Further the trial
court while fixing sureties shall not impose
any onerous or arbitrary conditions which
defeat the order granting bail to the
concerned prisoner or prevent the applicant
from being set forth at liberty.

8. Before parting some observations
have to be made in the facts of this case. The
applicant is in jail for almost one year. The
bail application of the applicant was allowed
by this Court on 18.05.2023. However, the
applicant has not been set forth at liberty on
account of the surety conditions in the bail
order.

9. Prima facie it appears that the trial
court and the DLSA did not discharge their
duties of making necessary enquiries even
after the prisoner was not set forth at liberty
within one week after the bail was granted
by this Court in light of Arvind Singh
(supra). The District Legal Services
Authority has not moved any application nor
preferred any advice to the applicant in light
of the judgment rendered in Arvind Singh
(supra) to seek a modification of the order
dated 18.05.2023.

10. It appears that the directions of this
Court in Arvind Singh (supra) have not
been complied with by the trial court and the
DLSA respectively.

11. All trial courts as well as DLSAs
are under an obligation to comply with the
directions of this Court in Arvind Singh
(supra) as well as those made above in this
order. Learned District Judge, Deoria shall
make necessary enquiries and appropriately
counsel the trial judge and the DLSA,
Deoria in the matter.

12. It is clarified that the above
observations
shall
not
be
construed
adversely against any judicial officer.

13. A copy of this order shall be sent
to Secretary, State Legal Services Authority.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1277
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 13444 of 2023

Praveen ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Rajrshi Gupta, Rizwan Ahamad, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Harshit Gupta, Ramanand Gupta

Criminal Law - Bail application- Applicant-
Allegation of shooting dead a businessman
by multiple close range firearm shots-
Conspiracy unearthed- Main conspirator
and co-accused bail application rejected-
Some other co-accused persons granted
1278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bail-
Established
principles
of
jurisprudence of bail- Relevant factors for
consideration
of
bail
application-
reiterated- Parity with other co-accused
persons rejected- Practice of engaging a
new
advocate-
Object
of
obtaining
adjournment-
discouraged-
Application
dismissed. (Paras 8 and 12)

HELD:
I have considered the above mentioned rival
submissions in referred factual and legal
backgrounds and in view of established principle
of jurisprudence of bail i.e. 'bail is rule and jail is
exception' as well as relevant factors for
consideration of a bail application such as (i)
whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had
committed 5 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;
(viii) danger, of course of justice being thwarted
by grant of bail etc, and that an order to grant or
not to grant bail must assigned reasons. (Para 8)

A practice to engage a new Advocate by an
applicant through his pairokar on date of hearing
or few days back, only with an object to take an
adjournment, specifically in bail applications,
which has already been adjourned repeatedly on
earlier dates on request of counsel for applicant,
is liable to be discouraged. It is duty of an
Advocate to expedite hearing of a bail application
and not to prolong it. (Para 12)

Application dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

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

2. Manoj Kumar Khokar Vs St. of Raj. &
anr.(2022) 3 SCC 501

3. The St. of Jharkhand Vs Dhananjay Gupta @
Dhananjay Prasad Gupta: Order dated 7.11.2023
in SLP(Crl) No.10810/2023

4. Shiv Kumar Vs The St. of U.P. & ors. : Order
dated 12.9.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2782 of
2023

5. Ramayan Singh Vs The St. of U.P. & anr., 2024
SCC OnLine SC 563

6. Sanjeev Vs St. of Kerala, 2023 INSC 998

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri I.P.S. Tomar and Sri
Rizwan Ahamad, learned counsels for
applicant, Sri Roshan Kumar Singh, learned
AGA for State and Sri Sagir Ahmad, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Harshit
Gupta, learned counsel for Informant.

2. Applicant-Praveen has approached
this Court by way of filing present bail
application seeking enlargement on bail in
Case Crime No. 543 of 2021 (Session Trial
No. 1197 of 2022), under Sections 302, 506,
120B, 34, 201, 473 IPC, Police Station Civil
Lines, District Aligarh.

3. This bail application was filed on
01.03.2023 and was taken up earlier for
hearing on eight dates, however, it was
mainly adjourned on request of counsel for
applicant or due to his absence or for
exchange of pleadings. Details of order
passed on earlier dates are reproduced
hereinafter:

Date
Order
01.06.
2023
1. Counter affidavit, if any, be
filed by the State counsel on or
before the date fixed.
2. List this case on 12.07.2023 as
fresh.
12.07.
2023
Counter affidavit filed by learned
counsel for the informant is taken
on record.
5 All. Praveen Vs. State of U.P.
1279
Learned counsel for the applicant
prays for and is granted one
week's time to file rejoinder
affidavit.

Put up this case on 20.7.2023 as a
fresh case.
20.07.
2023
As prayed put up this case on
1.8.2023 as a fresh case.
08.08.
2023
As prayed, list this case on
28.8.2023.
20.09.
2023
1. As prayed, list after two months.
19.10.
2023
1. Counsel for the applicant prays
for adjournment.
2. Counsel for the informant
informs that trial is on the verge of
conclusion.
3. List this case peremptorily on
28.10.2023.
03.11.
2023
Learned counsel for the informant
informs that trial is on the verge of
conclusion.
Learned counsel for the applicant
is seeking regular adjournment in
this case.

List this case after three months.
08.02.
2024
पररवरिी के दवद्वरन अदिवक्तर एवां दवद्वरन अपर
शरसकीय अदिवक्तर उपदस्थत हैं।
आवेिक की अ ोर से कोई उपदस्थत नहीं है।
इस वरि को दि० 19.03.2024 को अदतररक्त वरि
सूची र्ें सूचीबद्ध दकयर जरय।

4. Present case is arising out of an
occurrence where a businessman was shot
dead by multiple close range firearm shots
(five entry and three exit firearm wounds) in
his car by contract killers, who were
following deceased by another vehicle, at
about 08.45 PM on 27.12.2021 at a busy
place in the heart of Aligarh City. A thorough
investigation was conducted and a large
conspiracy was unearthed. In was revealed
that main conspirator was co-accused,
Ankush Agrawal, whose bail application
was rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court on 09.01.2023 (Neutral Citation No.
2023:AHC:5455). For reference reasons
assigned to reject bail application are
mentioned hereinafter:

"After
hearing
the
rival
contention, this court finds that main motive
for commission of alleged offence has been
attributed to the applicant by the witnesses.
The settlement an amount of Rs. 90 lacs was
disliked by the applicant since the deceased
was pursuing the settlement and wanted that
Deepti Gupta should be paid remaining
amount of Rs. 45 lacs as permanent alimony
by the applicant. The deceased was got
murdered by the applicant by hiring
shooters and hatching conspiracy with his
friend and co-accused stated above."

5. During investigation, on basis of
CCTV footage and eye witness account,
sketches of two assailants and driver of
vehicle were drawn. During investigation,
gradually layers of conspiracy were pealed
out, truth revealed and involvement of as
many as 13 accused came into light. Trial is
proceeding and it has reached upto
statement of last prosecution witness.
Submission was made that an application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is being filed on
behalf of applicant, but it was not supported
by any document. Otherwise also, it would
be a fatal argument as it would amount to
delay trial on part of accused side only.

6. Learned counsel for applicant has
mainly urged that there was no eye witness
who could identify real culprits. Applicant's
name
was
disclosed
in
confessional
statement of co-accused (Sahil Yadav), who
1280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has already been released on bail. There is
no direct evidenve of conspiracy and role
assigned to applicant being contract killer
alongwith other co-accused (Jitendra) is not
supported by cogent evidence. Driver of car,
who was also alleged to be a contract killer,
has been released on bail and other coaccused, alleged to be part of conspiracy,
have also been granted bail.

7. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for Informant submitted that
applicant being contract killer, has no fear of
law and order. He has long criminal history
of atleast eighteen cases involving offences
of attempt to murder, murder, murder during
robbery, Arms Act etc. Applicant is menace
to society and if bail is granted, he not only
being remain a flight risk but there is
likelihood to repeat grievous offences.
Ballistic report also proved that weapon
recovered on pointing out of applicant, was
used in occurrence. List of criminal cases
are as follows:

"i. Case Crime No. 508 of 2013
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 302, 307
IPC and 7 CLA Act P.S.- Civil Lines District
Aligarh.

ii. Case Crime No. 606 of 2013
under Section 25 Arms Act, Civil Lines
District Aligarh.

iii. Case Crime No. 543 of 2021
under Sections 302, 120B, 506, 34, 201, 473
IPC Civil Lines District Aligarh.

iv. Case Crime No. 368 of 2019
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504
IPC P.S. Khair
 District Aligarh.

v. Case Crime No. 89 of 2020
under Section 2/3 Gangster Act P.S. Banna
Devi District Aligarh.

vi. Case Crime No. 147 of 2019
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC P.S.
Banna Devi District Aligarh.

vii. Case Crime No. 148 of 2019
under Section 25/27 Arms Act P.S. Banna
Devi District Aligarh.

viii. Case crime no. 155 of 2022
under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, P.S. Civil
Line, Aligarh.

ix. Case Crime No. 198 of 2014
under Section 392 IPC P.S. Tappal District
Aligarh.

x. Case Crime No. 1402 of 2018
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC P.S.
Kotwali Sadabad District-Hathras.

xi. Case Crime No. 234 of 2015
under Sections 302, 120B, 34 IPC P.S.
Chandpa District- Hathras.

xii. Case Crime No. 17 of 2016
under Section 2/3 Gangster Act P.S.
Chandpa District- Hathras.

xiii. Case Crime No. 400 of 2017
under Sections 392, 34 IPC & 25 Arms Act
P.S. Badshahpur District- Gurugram.

xiv. Case Crime No. 58 of 2018
under Sections 392, 394, 395, 397, 365, 34
IPC & 25/27 Arms Act P.S. Dwarika
District- New Delhi.

xv. Case Crime No. 182 of 2018
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 P.S.
Shikarpur District- Bulandshehar.

xvi. Case Crime No. 76 of 2022
under Sections 25/27/3 Arms Act P.S. Tappal
District- Aligarh.

xvii. Case Crime No. 01 of 2017
under Section 25 Arms Act P.S. Special Cell
Lodhi Colony District- New Delhi.

xviii. Case Crime No. 36 of 2022
under
Section
3/25
Arms
Act,
P.S.
Bharatpur, Rajasthan."

8. I have considered the above
mentioned rival submissions in referred
factual and legal backgrounds and in view of
established principle of jurisprudence of bail
i.e 'bail is rule and jail is exception' as well
as relevant factors for consideration of a bail
application such as (i) whether there is any
5 All. Praveen Vs. State of U.P.
1281
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; (viii) danger, of course of justice
being thwarted by grant of bail etc, and that
an order to grant or not to grant bail must
assigned reasons (see Deepak Yadav vs
State of U.P. (2022) 8 SCC 559, Manoj
Kumar Khokar vs State of Rajasthan and
Anr (2022) 3 SCC 501, The State of
Jharkhand vs Dhananjay Gupta @
Dhananjay Prasad Gupta: Order dated
7.11.2023 in SLP(Crl) No.10810/2023,
Shiv Kumar Vs The State of U.P. and
Ors : Order dated 12.9.2023 in Criminal
Appeal No.2782 of 2023; Ramayan Singh
vs. The State of U.P. and another, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 563), I am of considered
opinion that present is not a fit case to grant
bail to applicant mainly on following
grounds:-

(i) The orders whereby co-accused
were granted bail were not accompanied
with reasons as warranted by Supreme Court
in Manoj Kumar Khokhar (supra) and
Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar (2022) 4
SCC 497. All co-accused were mainly
alleged to be part of larger conspiracy
whereas allegations against applicant are of
execution of plan to cause death by firing,
therefore, claim of parity is rejected.

(ii) In the present case a thorough
investigation was conducted that not only
various evidence such as, photo sketch,
CCTV footage, statement of various
witnesses, call details etc. were collected but
active involvement of applicant being
contract shooter was also unearthed and at
this stage there is no material to doubt
credibility of evidence collected during
investigation.

(iii) Trial is proceeding and
applicant has not placed statement of
witnesses recorded during trial and is
relying only upon material collected during
investigation. It appears that they want that
this Court may not peruse even prima facie
nature of evidence before Trial Court. This
factor
also
goes
against
applicant.
Complainant has filed some statement but
counsel for applicant has not referred it. In
this regard Court takes note submission of
learned Senior Advocate for Informant that
testimony of witnesses are prima facie
against applicant.

(iv) The argument with regard to
lack of evidence for hatching conspiracy is
also liable to be rejected as not only nature
of evidence before Trial Court is not brought
before this Court but question likely to be
put under Section 313 Cr.P.C. are still not
ascertained. In this regard paras 35 and 36 of
Sanjeev Vs. State of Kerala, 2023 INSC
998,
being
relevant,
are
mentioned
hereinafter:

"35. After consideration of these
depositions, we must decide whether the
evidence on record is sufficient to establish
a conspiracy under Section 120B, IPC. The
ingredients
to
constitute
a
criminal
conspiracy were summarised by this Court
in State through Superintendent of Police v.
Nalini & Ors. (1999)5 SCC 253 (3-Judge
Bench). They are as follows:

i. Conspiracy is when two or more
persons agree to do or cause to be done an
illegal act or legal act by illegal means.

ii.
The
offence
of
criminal
conspiracy is an exception to the general
law, where intent alone does not constitute
crime. It is the intention to commit a crime
1282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and join hands with persons having the same
intention.

iii. Conspiracy is hatched in
private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to
establish a conspiracy by direct evidence.
Usually, the existence of the conspiracy and
its objects have to be inferred from the
circumstances and the conduct of the
accused.

iv. Where in pursuance of the
agreement,
the
conspirators
commit
offenses individually or adopt illegal means
to do a legal act that has a nexus to the
object of the conspiracy, all of them will be
liable for such offenses even if some of them
have not actively participated in the
commission of those offenses.

36.
 These
principles
were
followed in Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v.
State of Maharashtra, (2013)13 SCC 1 (2Judge Bench), wherein this Court reiterated
that to establish conspiracy it is necessary to
establish an agreement between the parties.
Further, the offence of criminal conspiracy
is of joint responsibility, all conspirators are
liable for the acts of each of the crimes
which have been committed as a result of the
conspiracy. [See also: Arvind Singh v. State
of Maharashtra, (2021)11 SCC 1 (3-Judge
Bench); Mohd. Naushad (supra)]"

(v) The Court also takes note of
long criminal history of grievous offences of
applicant and submission that he is a flight
risk as well as likelihood of repeating
offence is also very high.

(vi) The Court also takes note of
reasons assigned while rejecting bail
application of co-accused, Ankush Agrawal.
(vii) It has not been denied that prosecution
witnesses have substantially supported
prosecution case and that they have been
tested with lengthy cross-examination.

9. The bail application is accordingly
rejected.

10. Trial Court concerned is directed to
conclude trial expeditiously.

11. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.

12. A practice to engage a new
Advocate by an applicant through his
pairokar on date of hearing or few days
back, only with an object to take an
adjournment,
specifically
in
bail
applications, which has already been
adjourned repeatedly on earlier dates on
request of counsel for applicant, is liable to
be discouraged. It is duty of an Advocate to
expedite hearing of a bail application and
not to prolong it.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1282
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1984

Rahatjan ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
S.I. Jafri, Amar Nath Sharma, Kuldeep Johri,
Shadab Ali, Vimlendu Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondent:
DGA

Criminal Law: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302 - Murder - Evidence Act, 1872
- Sections 25, 26 & 27 - Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
- Section 15, 16 - accused committed
murder of a young boy of 12 years of age
by strangulating him - accused made an