text
stringlengths 1.93k
19.2k
|
|---|
I, Manoj Kumar Kori aged about 35 years son of Shri Moti Lal Kori resident of Dharu Shahpur, Laxmikant Ganj, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education– Literate, Occupation – Tailor, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the brother/pariokar of applicant No. 1 and relative of another applicant and duly authorized by the applicants to swear this affidavit on their behalf and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to him as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No other bail application is pending before this or rejected by this . That brief fact of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the applicants on 21.12.2021 based on false and fabricated grounds, by the informant with regard to her rape bearing Case Crime No. 330 of 2021, under Sections 376D, 452, 354-B, 506 of IPC at Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh. The certified/ typed copy of the first information report dated 21.12.2021 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That according to the first information report lodged by one Seema Devi wife of Phool Chandra Kori resident of Village – Dharu Shahpur, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’), on 22.09.2021 around 18.00 hours, when the informant was at her home alone at that time the applicants entered their house and both have raped her. That the alleged incident which was occurred on 22.09.2021 around 18.00 hours but the first information report has been lodged on 21.12.2021 after about three months, without giving any explanation with regard to the delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the informant and her family lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That the first information report has been lodged by the informant against the applicants on the wrong and incorrect facts in counterblast to save her husband in retaliation of the first information report lodged against her husband and two others on 05.12.2021 by the daughter-in-law of the applicant No. 1 bearing Case Crime No. 315 of 2021 under Sections 376D, 504, 506, 452 of IPC and 3(i)Da, 3(i)Dha, 3(2)V of S. C. & S. T. Act registered at Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, in which concerned police also submitted the charge sheet No. 26 of 2022 dated 17.02.2022 against the husband of the husband of the informant and others under Sections 376D, 504, 506, 452 of IPC and 3(i)Da, 3(i)Dha, 3(2)V of S. C. & S. T. Act. The photocopy of the first information report dated 05.12.2021 lodged by the daughter-in-law of the applicant No. 1 against the husband of the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That after lodging the first information report, the statement of the informant has been recorded on 25.12.2021 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which the informant almost repeated her version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 25.12.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the medical of the informant was conducted on 28.12.2021 at C.H.C. Sangipur, Pratapgarh by the doctor, in which nothing has been found with regard to the rape as alleged by the informant. Here it is also relevant that according to the medical report, the informant has sustained no injuries. The photocopy of the medical report dated 28.12.2021 of the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the medical report of the informant has not collaborated with the allegations as nothing has been found in medical. That on 10.01.2022, the statement of the informant under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate under the influence of her family. The informant her prosecution story stated that when the applicants have runway after the commission of the crime then immediately she told the entire story to her grandfather-in-law & grandmother-in-law and when her husband returned home after three days then she told her. The typed copy of the statement of the informant under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 10.01.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the investigation of the case crime was not done properly and the statement of the informant under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. after 20 days of lodging the first information report, by which the investigation officer has not complied with the provisions of Section 164(5)A of Cr.P.C.. That the statement of the informant under 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. is under having several contradictions as such the above statement has no legal validity. That on a bare perusal of the first information report, the statements of the informant, there are several differences, which create doubt upon the prosecution story. That the aforesaid first information report has lodged by the informant after taking legal advice to falsely implicate the applicants in said case crime for purpose of taking revenge to the applicants, as the first information report lodged against her husband, the applicants are witnesses and also getting money from the state, which will be given to the rape victims. That the real story of the case is in a nutshell that the informant and applicants are residents of the same village. That the husband of the informant and two others have been raped with the daughter-in-law of the applicant No. 1 on 18.09.2021 against them a first information report bearing Case Crime No. 315 of 2021 under Sections 376D, 504, 506, 452 of IPC and 3(i)Da, 3(i)Dha, 3(2)V of S. C. & S. T. Act registered at Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh on 05.12.2021. That the informant, when came to know that a first information report would be lodged against her husband and others then all have on basis of legal advice, filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the court concerned for the safeguarding of offenders. That in compliance with the order passed by the learned court below, the said first information report against the applicants. That without proper investigation and appreciation of the evidence relating to the allegations made against the applicant No. 1, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet No. 195 of 2022 under Sections 376D, 452, 354-B, 504, 506 of IPC on 12.08.2022 and against the applicant No. 2 on 23.09.2022 bearing charge sheet No. 195A of 2022. That the whole story was cooked by the informant and her husband along with culprits of the Case Crime No. 315 of 2021, against the applicants and explained by the concerned police. That the informant has no ocular witness and prosecution story as narrated therein highly improbable, improper and unnatural and unbelievable for a prudent man, especially when he herself gives contradictive statements. That the informant never raises any alarm with regard to the incident in any manner, if she was raped by the applicants and the explanation given by the informant regarding not raising of alarm, is not possible in any manner. That the medical report of the informant is also not collaborating with the story of the prosecution, as per the medical of informant nothing has been found. That since the applicants have not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant and her husband in malafide intention. That the false story cooked up by the concerned police and the informant/informant and her husband for obtaining money from the state government, which is given to the rapped informant and taking revenge from the applicants. That there is no evidence against the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid case crime. That the prosecution story as narrated in the first information report is highly improbable, improper and unnatural and unbelievable for a prudent man. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 400 of 2023 before Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 6, Pratapgarh and their bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 23.02.2023 without considering the fact of the case. The free certified copy of the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this application. That the applicant No. 1 in jail since 09.08.2022 and applicant No. 2 since 13.09.2022 without committing any offense as alleged against them. That the applicants have no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and are not likely to hope in the future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicants absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicants are ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicants be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 330 of 2021, under Sections 376D, 452, 354-B, 504, 506 of IPC at Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, during the pendency of the case, in the interest of justice. |
I, Prem Tiwari aged about 37 years son of Shri Ram Sajeevan Tiwari resident of Pure Lautan Tiwari, Katawan, Police Station - Kurwar, District - Sultanpur, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Lliterate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is brother of applicant and doing pairvi of Applicant in the above noted case and duly authorized by him for filing instant application before the Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo verification issued by the Awadh Bar Association, of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the application as well as this affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant as such he is fully conversant with the same. That this is first bail application on behalf of the Applicant before the Hon'ble Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated in case crime No. 111 of 2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and 63, 72 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, at Police Station – Aalapur, District – Ambedkar Nagar on 26.03.2023 at 06.16 hours against the applicant and another. The certified/ typed copy of the first information report dated 26.03.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That according to the First Information Report, which has been lodged by Shri Bechu Singh Yadav, Staton House Officer, Police Station - Aalapur, District – Ambedkar Nagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’), the prosecution story is in a nutshell that the informant and his team (other police personnel) were on patrolling of the area and at that time the informant got information from his informer (eq[kfcj) in regard of huge adulterated liquor is transporting through tanker No. UP 42 BT 9710. That the raid has been conducted by the informant along with his team on 26.03.2023 and arrested the applicant and another from the spot and also seized a lot of adulterated liquor from inside of the tanker. That the applicant is a common man of society and has no concerns with the adulterated liquor and during the raid the applicant was not present at the place of the alleged incident, the concerned police arrested the applicant from his house without any reason and falsely implicate in said case crime for showing good work of the police. That the real fact is that the applicant are falsely implicated by the informant himself due to their own personal revenge, which has been explained by the concerned police as the ulterior motive. That the informant had personal revenge on the applicant. When the informant was posted as Station House Officer at Police Station - Jaisinghpur, District - Sultanpur, he was randomly checking the papers of the vehicles on the road along with the police team. That the applicant was stopped by a constable and brought to the informant to show his papers. The applicant had all the requisite papers but the informant demanded money from the applicant, which was denied by the applicant. That the informant and his team misbehaved and abused then the applicant strongly opposed, due to which several people gathered and raised their voices against the informant for his illegal demand. That before leaving the place of said incident, the informant had threatened the applicant to face the consequences of said opposition. That the informant had enmity with the applicant and was searching for a chance to falsely implicate the applicant in crime. That when the informant posted at another Police Station i.e. at Police Station - Aalapur then on 26.03.2023, the applicant was in his village, at the time the applicant was arrested by the informant from his house and he has been falsely implicated in the case crime by him due to his self-satisfaction due to old enmity. That it is further relevant to mention that the Tanki test of alleged adulterated liquor has not been conducted by the Excise Officer concerned and even prior to information regarding said liquor, while the Excise Inspector was present at the time of the alleged raid, even the informant and Excise Inspector were themselves not assured that the recovered liquor is adulterated. That on a bare perusal of the first information report, it is also evident that there were no witnesses of the raid conducted by the informant, which also creates doubts upon the story of the informant, which itself concocted and false. That according to the prosecution story, it is clearly revealed that no one saw the occurrence and there are no independent eyewitnesses of the said recovery, it is a case of the forge, fabricated and false and there is no evidence against the applicant. That the applicant has no concerns with the vehicle i.e. UP 42 BT 9710, in which the alleged adulterated liquor was recovered/seized by the informant but it was showing that the in the first information report that the applicant said, the applicant is the owner of the vehicle, who had purchased the said vehicle in the name of another person. That the informant has not arrested the applicant at the alleged place of recovery or even not found anything from the applicant’s possession. That till date there is no chemical report stating therein that the recovered liquor was obnoxious or spurious for human consumption. That on 26.03.2023, a first information report has been lodged by the concerned police due to extraneous consideration; the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case crime. That the applicant is in jail since 26.03.2023 without committing any offense as alleged against them. That nothing has been recovered from the applicant’s possession by the informant and if any recovery is made, the applicant has no concern with recovered adulterated liquor in any manner as such the Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and 63, 72 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910 made against him. That the applicant had applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar bearing Bail Application No. 319 of 2023, which has been rejected by the court concerned without going into the fact and records of the case. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 20.05.2023 passed by the court concerned is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except this false case, lodged by the informant for extraneous reasons. That due to the false implication of the applicant in the case crime, his business has been ruined and his family is coming on the road. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report by the informant and he has no concerns. That there is no possibility of the applicant’s conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is the common man of the society. He has never been convicted in any case and has not been involved in any criminal activities ever. There is no criminal history against the applicant except in this present case. That there is no chance of the applicant’s absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the Applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 111 of 2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and 63, 72 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910 registered at Police Station – Aalapur, District – Ambedkar Nagar, in the interest of justice. |
I, Narendra Bahadur Singh aged about 45 years son of Shri Anand Bahadur Singh resident of Sarai Khande, Dughvan, Sarai Khande Mu, District - Hardoi, Education – Literate, Occupation – Self-employed, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the uncle/ pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That the counsel of the applicants has explained the contents of the application as well as this affidavit in Hindi to the deponent and he understands the same in his language. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That brief fact of the case is that a first information report was lodged against the unknown person on 13.11.2023 at 08.30 hours by Shri Vishram son of Late Kallu, Police Station – Kheron, District - Hardoi resident of Village - Pahadpur hamlet of Ahiri, Police Station - Baghauli, District – Hardoi (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) under Section 304 of IPC at Police Station – Baghauli District – Hardoi. The photo/typed copy of the first information report dated 13.11.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 13.11.2023 by the informant alleged therein that on 13.11.2023 around 5.00 AM, the grandson of the informant namely Anurag (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), who was the son of the applicant, was crying for going to his grandmother. When the grandson of the informant came out at that time the applicant hit the deceased with a stick. The deceased was brought to the CHC, Ahirori but he died on the way. That on a bare perusal of the first information report, it is clear that there is no reason or intention assigned for committing the murder of the deceased, who was the 7-year-old son of the applicant, which creates doubt about the prosecution story. That the version of the first information report is totally false and baseless and the same is depends upon the concocted story and nothing has been done by the applicant as alleged by the informant in his first informant report. That on 13.11.2023, the inquest report was prepared by the concerned police in the presence of several persons, who repeated the version of the first information report. The photo/typed copy of the inquest report dated 13.11.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted at _____________, in which only injury was shown and the cause of death was ascertained as ‘_____________________’. The photo/typed copy of the post-mortem report dated ……………….. is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the concerned police recovered the murder weapon of the alleged murder on pointing at the applicant on 14.11.2023, after his arrest from his house. The photo/typed copy of the recovery memo dated 14.11.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the concerned police recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 13.11.2023 in which the informant gave approximately the same statement as mentioned in the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 13.11.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That several statements of the witnesses, who are the grandmother and cousin brother of the deceased have been recorded by the investigating officer on _____________ under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which they said they also repeated the statement of the informant in their own words. The typed copies of the statements of the grandmother and cousin brother of the deceased are being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That thereafter on ___________, the statements of the mother and aunt of the deceased, in which they stated that the mental status of the applicant was not well and became short-tempered and when the deceased was crying, the applicant hit but his intention was not for the murder of the deceased. The typed copies of the statements of the mother and aunt of the deceased are being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident in any manner. That the applicant was indeed present at his potato field from 11.00 PM of 12.11.2023 for guarding the same against the cattle. That the son of the applicant i.e. deceased was sleeping with his cousin brother Sachin and on the morning of 13.11.2023 around 05.00 AM, suddenly after waking, he ran outside of the house, where he fell and sustained a head injury. That after getting information regarding the accident of his son, he reached his house and went with the deceased for his treatment but unfortunately his son died. That the father of the applicant i.e. the informant went to the concerned police to give information regarding the unfortunate incident. Along with the informant, some villagers, who have enmity with the applicant’s family went with his father and as the informant was an illiterate person, someone wrote the applicant, in which named the applicant for the murder of his 7-year-old son. That the concerned police charge sheet against and the trial has been initiated in which the statements of the P.W. - 1 to 3 have been recorded by the concerned trial court on 22.02.2024, 05.03.2024 and 02.04.2024 respectively, in which they all have told the truth before the court concerned as such they have been declared hostile by the concerned trial court. The photo/typed copy of the statements of the P.W. - 1 to 3 recorded by the trial court are being annexed as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That neither the applicant has any motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. Merely village party bandi, the applicant has been framed in the said case crime. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself shows that no prima-facie offense under Section 304 of IPC at Police Station – Baghauli, District – Hardoi is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which was given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police and enemies of the applicant. That since the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That the applicant moved bail application bearing Bail Application No. 700 of 2024 before Sessions Judge, Hardoi, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 27.03.2024 without considering the grounds in his bail application. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That the applicant in jail since 14.11.2023 without the commission of any offense. That the applicant has no any previous criminal history. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 402 of 2023 under Section 304 of IPC registered at Police Station – Baghauli, District – Hardoi during the pendency of the case. |
I, Nirmla Devi aged about 28 years wife of Basant Lal resident of Bhojpur Ashik, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Illiterate , Occupation – Housewife, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the wife of the applicant duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief facts of the case is that a F.I.R. has been lodged on 12.07.2013 against the Sarvesh Kumar under section 363/366/376/506 I.P.C. and Section 9(L) The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 by the mother of victim namely Nirmla Devi. A copy of the F.I.R. dated 12.07.2013 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That it is also relevant to mention here that the F.I.R. has been lodged 19 day delays without proper explanation of delay. That the statement of 161 Cr.P.C. of complainant recorded on 12.07.2013 and in her statement the complainant nothing says about the applicant. A copy of the statement of 161 Cr.P.C. of complainant is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That after the recording of statement of the complainant police recorded the statement of the victim, who is present at her house. A copy of the statement of 161 Cr.P.C. of victim dated 12.07.2013 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the victim sends for medical examination by the police to District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh at 04.05 PM on 13.07.2013 and medical report & supplementary medical report submitted. A copy of the medical report & supplementary medical report are being annexed as Annexure No. 04 collectively to this application. That according to the medical report no external & internal injury seen in body of victim and sexual character is well developed. The radiological age of victim 19 nineteen years. That the statement of 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 19.07.2013 after seven days of statement of 161 Cr.P.C. of victim in meantime the victim residing with her mother and the statement of victim is well thoughtful against the applicant. A copy of the statement of 164 Cr.P.C. of victim is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That the complainant and victim have nothing stated against the applicant in her statements under section 161 Cr.P.C.. But victim has stated in her statement 164 Cr.P.C., the applicant was pressurized to give statement in favour of accused Sarvesh and threatened to life if she can’t give statement in favour of accused Sarvesh. That the accused Sarvesh and victim Lalti Pal are in love since long time. The victim is stated in her statement 164 Cr.P.C., accused Sarvesh give a mobile phone to victim for chatting. That the applicant not named in F.I.R. after investigation, the investigation officer submitted charge sheet against the applicant bearing 196A of 2013 under section 212/120B/363/366/376/506 I.P.C. and Section 9(L) The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station – Lalganj, District –Pratapgarh on 12.08.2013. That the arrested on 12.08.2013 and his bail rejected by the Additional Session Judge, Pratapgarh on 31.08.2013. A copy of the order dated 31.08.2013 is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this application. That no any involvement in said case and no any evidence against the applicant. That the applicant is Mausa of accused Sarvesh. That the applicant in jail since 12.08.2013 and has no criminal history. That the applicant is innocent and informant falsely implicated in the aforesaid case crime. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. |
I, Jamal aka Jamal Ahmad aged about 46 years son of Girau Shah, resident of Village - Bhagosar (Bhagwatpur), Koyalkhar, Itai, Police Station - Gaura Chauraha, District - Balrampur, Education – Intermediate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the father/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to him as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 21.04.2024 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 58 of 2024 under Sections 363 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Gaura Chauraha, District – Balrampur. The certified copy of the first information report dated 21.04.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report the opposite party No. 2 stated in her first information report that on 20.04.2022, the applicant allured her minor daughter (hereinafter referred to as ‘victim’) and took her away anywhere and she tried her best to find the victim but not find. That on the very same day i.e. on 21.04.2024, the statement of the victim was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which she stated that the applicant had given his mobile number and given a life threat to call him. On 20.04.2024, the applicant forcefully brought her and after committing rape, a runaway from the place of incident. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. dated 21.04.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on 22.04.2024, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the concerned police, in which she changed the version of the first information report and also tried to develop his prosecution story. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 22.04.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the medical of the victim was conducted on 22.04.2024 at District Women Hospital, Balrampur by the doctor concerned, in which nothing has been found with regard to the allegations of the opposite party No. 2 and the victim also. Even though, the victim herself stated during her medical that she went with the applicant with her own WILL and had a sexual relationship with her WILL. The photo/ typed copy of the medical report dated 22.04.2024 of the victim is being annexed herewith collectively as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the investigating officer added Section 376 (3) of I.P.C., (2)V of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in the aforesaid case crime on 22.04.2024. That the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the concerned court on 24.04.2024, in which the victim almost repeated her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and also tried her best to falsely implicate the applicant in said case for extraneous reasons. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 24.04.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the real story of the case is that the applicant is the common man of the society and has not committed any offense as alleged against him. That the victim and applicant have fallen in love since long back and they met regularly with each other. When this fact came to the knowledge of the victim and her family then they came to the applicant’s house and restrained the applicant and victim to continue their love relationship. That the victim stated that she is more than 18 years hence the applicant and victim decided to solemnize their marriage with their own WILL as both are major in age. That on 20.04.2024, the opposite party No. 2 scolded her daughter i.e. the victim thereafter the victim called the applicant to meet. That the applicant met with the victim on 20.04.2024 at the alleged place of the incident, where they were physically active. That the opposite party No. 2 is well aware that her daughter i.e. victim is major in age but he has lodged the first information report saying therein that the victim is a minor. That there is no genuine ground found by the concerned police against the applicant and for extraneous reasons, the charge sheet has been filed against the applicant in said case crime. That the prosecution story as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper unnatural, and unbelievable for a prudent man. The victim herself admitted that the applicant did not rape her and she went with the applicant with her own free WILL. That without proper investigation of the case, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet under Sections 363, 376 (3) of I.P.C., 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and 3(2)V of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on 04.05.2024 against the applicant. The photocopy of the charge sheet dated 04.05.2024 submitted by the concerned police is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That there is no evidence against the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid case crime. That since the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the opposite party No. 2 and their family members with malafide intentions. That in the present case there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the applicant did not commit the offence. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 880 of 2024 before Sessions Judge, Balrampur, and his bail application was rejected by the Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012) Act, Balrampur on 16.07.2024. The free certified copy of the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the learned court concerned is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the applicant has been languishing in jail since 25.04.2024 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 58 of 2024 under Sections 363, 376 (3) of I.P.C., 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)V of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at Police Station – Gaura Chauraha, District – Balrampur, in the interest of justice. |
I, Shyam Bahadur Singh aged about 56 years son of Shri Ram Kewal Singh resident of Village - Madhuban, Post - Bansgaon, Police Station - Akbarpur, District – Ambedkar Nagar, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the uncle/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The photo verification slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow of the deponent is affixed on the affidavit and his ID proof is enclosed with the affidavit. That the deponent further declared that the contents of the bail application have been explained by the counsel of the applicant in Hindi and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed as under. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief fact of the case is that a first information report was lodged against unknown persons on 27.10.2023 at 23.30 hours by Sushant Pandey son of Shri Dilip Pandey resident of Village - Mahuval, Post-Tandwa Maulai, Police Station - Jalalpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar, (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) under Sections 302, 211 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Akbarpur, District – Ambedkar Nagar regarding incident dated 20.10.2023. The certified typed copy of the first information report dated 27.10.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 27.10.2023 by the informant, on 20.10.2023 the informant found his uncle namely Hemant Pandey (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) dead and his post-mortem was conducted. He also stated that he had doubts that his uncle had been murdered by unknown persons. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 20.10.2023 but the first information report was lodged on 27.10.2023, without giving any explanation with regard to the 7-day delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the informant lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That the inquest report of the deceased body was prepared by the concerned police on 21.10.2023 in the presence of several villagers including the informant and his father. That the body of the deceased was brought for conducting a post-mortem on 21.10.2023, where the post-mortem was conducted and the cause of the death was ascertained as ‘Asphyxia & shock due to antemortem strangulation & injury”. The photo/ typed copy of the post-mortem report dated 21.10.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the version of the first information report is totally false and baseless and the same depends upon the concocted story as such nothing happened as alleged by the informant in his first informant report. Here it is relevant to mention that the applicant was not named in the first information report. That the investigating officer recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 30.10.2023 in which the informant almost repeated her first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 30.10.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That first-ever, the police informer named the applicant on 17.11.2023 and stated that on 19.10.2023, the applicant, the deceased and another drank together and after a dispute, the applicant and another murdered the deceased. The typed copy of the endorsement made in CD-15 dated 17.11.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the investigating officer has no any concrete evidences and merely on the statement of his informer, obtained the CDR of the applicant and related that the applicant had murdered the deceased. That later on, the applicant was arrested by the concerned police on 19.11.2023 from his home but for showing his good work, his arrest was shown in a forged and fabricated arresting memo dated 19.11.2023. Another accused was also arrested by the concerned police on the same day. That thereafter, the confessional statements of the co-accused and applicant have been written/ prepared by the Investigating Officer on 19.11.2023 as per his wish and tried their best to collaborate with the alleged incident and witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. only to prove the offense against the applicant whereas the applicant has not committed any offense. The typed copy of the confessional statement of the applicant and co-accused dated 19.11.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the confessional statements of the other accused were recorded by the concerned police on 19.11.2023 under the life threat, in which he stated that the murder of the deceased was planned by all the accused as the named accused fought with the deceased on 13.10.2023. However, the applicant was reached at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. That the confessional statements of the arrested co-accused and applicant were recorded by the concerned police on 19.11.2023 under the life threat, in which the applicant said everything as narrated by the concerned police. That it is most humbly submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated by the informant in the instant case and there is no evidentiary value in the eye of the law relating to the confessional statements given by the arrested accused. That the investigating officer further prepared a false recovery memo on 19.11.2023 by which recovered the murder weapon and a broken mobile phone on pointing of the applicant and another accused. The photo/typed copy of the recovery memo dated 19.11.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That on the basis of such a story, which was narrated by the investigating officer himself, without proper investigation of the case crime, submitted the charge sheet against the applicant and another accused bearing charge sheet No. 521 of 2023 on 3.11.2023. That the real story is that the applicant has no concern with the alleged offense and he has been falsely implicated by the informant due to false and incorrect facts merely on presumption. That it is true that the deceased and applicant were known to each other and on several occasions they have drunk together. That the deceased was not a good person, even though after taking liquor, he started misbehaving & abusing to anyone and also had criminal records due to which he had several enemies, who wanted to kill her, it was admitted by the deceased himself, when he was last time met with the applicant. That on 19.10.2023, the deceased was fully drunk and as per his nature, in the drunken stage, the deceased fought someone and was murdered by anonymous persons but due to an old relation with the deceased, he has been falsely implicated in the said case crime. That the applicant has no concern with the murder of the deceased in any manner as alleged by the concerned police and the allegation against the applicant and also the prosecution story is totally against truth and is not reliable in manner. That neither the applicant has a motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself shows that no prima-facie offense under Sections 302, 211 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Akbarpur, District – Ambedkar Nagar is made out against the applicant. That the applicant is in jail since 19.11.2023 without committing any offense. That apart from the abovementioned case, as per the best knowledge of the applicant, he has no criminal history. That the deceased was himself a criminal and had several enemies, however, as per the best knowledge of the applicant, against the deceased below mentioned cases were lodged:- Case Crime No. 355 of 2020 lodged under Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C. and 3(2)(V) of S. C. & S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment, 2005) registered at Police Station - Baskhari, District - Ambedkar Nagar, in which the charge sheet No. 316 of 2020 filed against the deceased and others on 13.12.2020. Case Crime No. 148 of 2023 lodged under Sections 3/25 Arms Act registered at Police Station - Jalalpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar. The photocopies of the first information report and charge sheet in which the deceased the named are being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the applicant moved bail application No. 3631 of 2024 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 02.02.2024. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will be never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 608 of 2023 under Sections 302, 211 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Akbarpur, District – Ambedkar Nagar, in the interest of justice. |
I, Shankar Lal Sah aged about 60 years son of Shri Jeeta Sah resident of Ward No. 15, Subhash Nagar, Kasba, Purnia, Kasba, Bihar, Education – Post Graduate, Occupation – Private Job, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The photo verification slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow of the deponent is affixed on the affidavit and his ID proof is enclosed with the affidavit. That the deponent further declared that the contents of the bail application have been explained by the counsel of the applicant in Hindi and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed as under. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief fact of the case is that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 01.01.2024 at 23.20 hours by Piyush Sharma, Office Assistant, Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank, Branch - Itairampur, Gaindas Bujurg, Balrampur (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) under Section 409 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Gaindas Bujurg, District – Balrampur regarding incident dated 30.12.2023. The certified typed copy of the first information report dated 01.01.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That the informant stated in his first information report that being the Branch Manager of the Bank, the applicant did not come to the bank on 01.01.2024 without prior information. The mobile of the applicant was switched off and his house was also locked. The informant informed the regional office that on 30.12.2023, there was a delay in closing the cash due to the solar of the branch going off. After matching the cash and getting the Cash Balance Book signed, the applicant took the second key of the cash himself and asked the informant to leave saying that a recovery has to come in a loan account and said he will close the cash. On 01.01.2024, in front of the staff of the Regional Office, the cash was opened with the duplicate keys received from another branch and when the cash was counted, it was found that there was Rs. 18,47,500/- and the informant alleged that the said amount has been taken by the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 30.12.2023 but the first information report was lodged on 01.01.2024, without giving any explanation with regard to the 2 days delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the informant lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That here it is relevant to mention that the allegations levelled against the applicant are false and incorrect as the applicant has not been involved in an offense alleged by the informant. That the informant lodged the first information report on the basis of a false and incorrect fact and the same depends upon the concocted story as such nothing happened as alleged by her in his first informant report. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 03.01.2024 in which the informant repeated his first information report version. However, the applicant has not committed any offense as stated by him. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 03.01.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the Investigating Officer recorded the further statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 08.01.2024 in which the informant repeated his first information report version with improved facts to build his case against the applicant while the applicant has not committed any offense as stated in the first information report. The typed copy of the further statement of the informant dated 08.01.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the applicant was arrested on 10.01.2024 by the concerned police and the confessional statement of the applicant was written/ prepared by the Investigating Officer on 11.01.2024 as per his wish and as narrated by the bank officials, by which he tried his best to collaborate with the alleged incident and witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. only to prove the offense against the applicant whereas the applicant has not committed any offense. The typed copy of the confessional statement of the applicant dated 11.01.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That it is most humbly submitted that the applicant is innocent and she has falsely been implicated by the informant in the instant case and there is no evidentiary value in the eye of the law relating to the confessional statement given by the applicant. That on 12.01.2024, the further statement of the applicant was recorded by the concerned police, and in furtherance of the same, a forged and fabricated recovery memo was prepared on 18.01.2024 by which the several keys of the bank were recovered by the concerned police. The photocopy of the further statement of the applicant dated 12.01.2024 and the recovery memo dated 18.01.2024 are being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the statement of the Guard namely Luddur Prasad, who was on duty on 30.12.2023 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 26.02.2024, in which he stated that the bank was not opened on the night of 30.12.2023. The typed copy of the statement of the guard on duty dated 26.02.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the Investigating Officer again recorded the second further statement of the informant on 13.03.2024, in which the informant again tried to improve his prosecution story and tried to fill the loopholes of allegations. However, when the Investigation Officer asked the questions from the informant, he gave doubtful answers to him. The typed copy of the second further statement of the informant dated 13.03.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the Investigating Officer also recorded the second further statement of the applicant on 13.03.2024, in which he asked certain questions, which were replied by the applicant and nothing was found by the Investigating Officer against the applicant. The typed copy of the second further statement of the applicant dated 13.03.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That it is most humbly submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated by the informant in the instant case and there is no evidentiary value in the eye of the law relating to the confessional statements given by the arrested accused. That so far allegations regarding the taking of the key of the locker from the informant, it is relevant to mention that as per GAD Circular 02/2020 dated 15.01.2020, a written record of the bank keys is to be maintained and in the bank records, there is no record that the petitioner kept the key from the informant. The photocopy of the GAD Circular dated 15.01.2020 of the concerned bank is being annexed as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That it was also mentioned in the confessional statement of the applicant, that he has taken money several times from the bank, if it was true then the money was always found less on counting of the same. That here it is also relevant to mention that when the applicant being the Manager of the bank already had a key, then there is no need to take another key from the informant or other person. That in the statement of the applicant, it has been also written by the Investigating Officer that the applicant stole money for the marriage of his sister while the marriage of the applicant’s sister was solemnized on 06.06.2014. The photocopy of the marriage card of the applicant’s sister's marriage is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That here it is also relevant to mention that nothing was recovered from the possession of the applicant and also the applicant has not taken any loan, which is pending for repayment as mentioned in the statement. That on the basis of such a story, which was narrated by the investigating officer himself, without proper investigation of the case crime, submitted the charge sheet against the applicant bearing charge sheet on 06.04.2024. That the real story is that the applicant has no concern with the alleged offense and he has been falsely implicated by the informant due to false and incorrect facts merely on presumption. That the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case crime by the informant due to office politics as he was very strict with the employees with regard to their work performance. That the wife of the applicant left him due to which he was in deep mental trauma as such he was absent from bank duty without any prior information and due to which the applicant has been falsely implicated in the said case crime while he has not committed any offense as alleged against him. That the applicant has no concern with the stolen money in any manner as alleged by the informant as well as concerned police and the allegation against the applicant and also the prosecution story is totally against truth and is not reliable in manner. That neither the applicant has a motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself shows that no prima-facie offense under Section 409 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Gaindas Bujurg, District – Balrampur is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has been in jail since 11.01.2024 without committing any offense. That apart from the abovementioned case, as per the best knowledge of the applicant, he has no criminal history. That the applicant moved bail application No. 3631 of 2024 before the learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 03.02.2024. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 11 to this affidavit. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will be never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 01 of 2024 under Section 409 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Gaindas Bujurg, District – Balrampur, in the interest of justice. |
I, Shyam Bahadur Singh aged about 56 years son of Shri Ram Kewal Singh resident of Village - Madhuban, Post - Bansgaon, Police Station - Akbarpur, District – Ambedkar Nagar, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the uncle/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The photo verification slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow of the deponent is affixed on the affidavit and his ID proof is enclosed with the affidavit. That the deponent further declared that the contents of the bail application have been explained by the counsel of the applicant in Hindi and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed as under. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief fact of the case is that a first information report was lodged against unknown persons on 27.10.2023 at 23.30 hours by Sushant Pandey son of Shri Dilip Pandey resident of Village - Mahuval, Post-Tandwa Maulai, Police Station - Jalalpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar, (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) under Sections 302, 211 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Akbarpur, District – Ambedkar Nagar regarding incident dated 20.10.2023. The certified typed copy of the first information report dated 27.10.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 27.10.2023 by the informant, on 20.10.2023 the informant found his uncle namely Hemant Pandey (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) dead and his post-mortem was conducted. He also stated that he had doubts that his uncle had been murdered by unknown persons. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 20.10.2023 but the first information report was lodged on 27.10.2023, without giving any explanation with regard to the 7-day delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the informant lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That the inquest report of the deceased body was prepared by the concerned police on 21.10.2023 in the presence of several villagers including the informant and his father. That the body of the deceased was brought for conducting a post-mortem on 21.10.2023, where the post-mortem was conducted and the cause of the death was ascertained as ‘Asphyxia & shock due to antemortem strangulation & injury”. The photo/ typed copy of the post-mortem report dated 21.10.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the version of the first information report is totally false and baseless and the same depends upon the concocted story as such nothing happened as alleged by the informant in his first informant report. Here it is relevant to mention that the applicant was not named in the first information report. That the investigating officer recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 30.10.2023 in which the informant almost repeated her first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 30.10.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That first-ever, the police informer named the applicant on 17.11.2023 and stated that on 19.10.2023, the applicant, the deceased and another drank together and after a dispute, the applicant and another murdered the deceased. The typed copy of the endorsement made in CD-15 dated 17.11.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the investigating officer has no any concrete evidences and merely on the statement of his informer, obtained the CDR of the applicant and related that the applicant had murdered the deceased. That later on, the applicant was arrested by the concerned police on 19.11.2023 from his home but for showing his good work, his arrest was shown in a forged and fabricated arresting memo dated 19.11.2023. Another accused was also arrested by the concerned police on the same day. That thereafter, the confessional statements of the co-accused and applicant have been written/ prepared by the Investigating Officer on 19.11.2023 as per his wish and tried their best to collaborate with the alleged incident and witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. only to prove the offense against the applicant whereas the applicant has not committed any offense. The typed copy of the confessional statement of the applicant and co-accused dated 19.11.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the confessional statements of the other accused were recorded by the concerned police on 19.11.2023 under the life threat, in which he stated that the murder of the deceased was planned by all the accused as the named accused fought with the deceased on 13.10.2023. However, the applicant was reached at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. That the confessional statements of the arrested co-accused and applicant were recorded by the concerned police on 19.11.2023 under the life threat, in which the applicant said everything as narrated by the concerned police. That it is most humbly submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated by the informant in the instant case and there is no evidentiary value in the eye of the law relating to the confessional statements given by the arrested accused. That the investigating officer further prepared a false recovery memo on 19.11.2023 by which recovered the murder weapon and a broken mobile phone on pointing of the applicant and another accused. The photo/typed copy of the recovery memo dated 19.11.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That on the basis of such a story, which was narrated by the investigating officer himself, without proper investigation of the case crime, submitted the charge sheet against the applicant and another accused bearing charge sheet No. 521 of 2023 on 3.11.2023. That the real story is that the applicant has no concern with the alleged offense and he has been falsely implicated by the informant due to false and incorrect facts merely on presumption. That it is true that the deceased and applicant were known to each other and on several occasions they have drunk together. That the deceased was not a good person, even though after taking liquor, he started misbehaving & abusing to anyone and also had criminal records due to which he had several enemies, who wanted to kill her, it was admitted by the deceased himself, when he was last time met with the applicant. That on 19.10.2023, the deceased was fully drunk and as per his nature, in the drunken stage, the deceased fought someone and was murdered by anonymous persons but due to an old relation with the deceased, he has been falsely implicated in the said case crime. That the applicant has no concern with the murder of the deceased in any manner as alleged by the concerned police and the allegation against the applicant and also the prosecution story is totally against truth and is not reliable in manner. That neither the applicant has a motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself shows that no prima-facie offense under Sections 302, 211 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Akbarpur, District – Ambedkar Nagar is made out against the applicant. That the applicant is in jail since 19.11.2023 without committing any offense. That apart from the abovementioned case, as per the best knowledge of the applicant, he has no criminal history. That the deceased was himself a criminal and had several enemies, however, as per the best knowledge of the applicant, against the deceased below mentioned cases were lodged:- Case Crime No. 355 of 2020 lodged under Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C. and 3(2)(V) of S. C. & S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment, 2005) registered at Police Station - Baskhari, District - Ambedkar Nagar, in which the charge sheet No. 316 of 2020 filed against the deceased and others on 13.12.2020. Case Crime No. 148 of 2023 lodged under Sections 3/25 Arms Act registered at Police Station - Jalalpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar. The photocopies of the first information report and charge sheet in which the deceased the named are being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the applicant moved bail application No. 3631 of 2024 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 02.02.2024. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will be never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 608 of 2023 under Sections 302, 211 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Akbarpur, District – Ambedkar Nagar, in the interest of justice. |
I, Ram Bahadur Tripathi aged about 52 years son of Shri Ram Bujhawan resident of Village – Beerpur, Mathura, District - Balrampur, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – ___________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the friend/ pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the unknown persons on 21.09.2022 at 15.10 hours by Smt. Rekha Devi, Principal, Balrampur Balika Inter College, Balrampur (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) bearing Case Crime No. 266 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Balrampur. The certified copy of the first information report dated 21.09.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That the first information report lodged by the informant against the applicant on 21.09.2022 on baseless and incorrect facts and grounds stating therein that the applicant applied for the vacant post of assistant teacher (Urdu) and she was selected on the said post and in pursuant to the appointment order dated 22.11.2021, joined on a very same day. The authority concerned received a verification report dated 11.07.2022 for B.Ed. certificate of the applicant from Didho Kanho Birsa University, Purulia, West Bengal, it was stated therein that the certificate of the applicant was fake and thereafter the first information report was lodged against the applicant That here it is relevant to mention that the allegations levelled against the applicant are false and incorrect as the applicant has not been involved in an offense alleged by the informant. That the informant lodged the first information report on the basis of a false and incorrect fact and the same depends upon the concocted story as such nothing happened as alleged by her in her first informant report. That the investigating officer recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 30.10.2022 in which the informant repeated her first information report version. However, the applicant has not committed any offense as stated by her. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 30.10.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That it is most humbly submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been implicated in the instant case by the informant herself due to conspiracy of the office polictic. That the real story is that the applicant’s father died in the year 1991 and anyhow she completed her education by doing work and she is a good schooler. The photocopies of the educational documents of the applicant are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That the applicant pursued her B.Ed. from Didho Kanho Birsa University, Purulia, West Bengal and passed in the year 2015 and presently after getting permission from the authority concerned she is pursuing her Ph.D. in Sociology. That the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj issued an advertisement for the appointment of Assistant Teachers and the online application process started on 16.03.2021. That according to the said advertisement, the requisite qualification for the post of assistant teacher (Urdu) was B.A. (Urdu) & L.T. or B.T. or B.Ed. or another equivalent or degree or diploma. That the applicant has the requisite qualifications for the post hence she applied and after examination, the applicant was declared selected. That the District Inspector of Schools, Balrampur vide its order dated 11.11.2021 directed the Manager, Balrampur Balika Inter College, Balrampur to issue the appointment letter to the applicant. The photocopy of the order dated 11.11.2021 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Balrampur is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That thereafter, the Authorized Controller, Balrampur Balika Inter College, Balrampur issued an appointment letter to the applicant on 22.11.2021 and in pursuant to the same, the applicant joined on the very same day in the school on the post of assistant teacher (Urdu). The photocopy of the appointment letter dated 22.11.2021 and joining letter are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That the applicant was initially appointed to the post in question on probation for one year. That after her appointment, the applicant has been continuing in service since then without any complaint to the full satisfaction of the higher authorities. The work and conduct of the applicant have always been found to be satisfactory by the superior officer of the department without any complaint from any corner. That thereafter as per standard procedure, the educational documents of the applicant were sent to the concerned Universities for verification and on 11.07.2022, the Principal, Balrampur Balika Inter College, Balrampur received a verification report from Didho Kanho Birsa University, Purulia, West Bengal, in which it has been stated the applicant’s certificate is fake. The photocopy of the verification report dated 11.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That later on, vide letter dated 22.08.2022, the Didho Kanho Birsa University, Purulia, West Bengal sent another verification dated 22.08.2022 stating therein that the verification report dated 11.07.2022 has not been issued by the University and the certificate of the applicant is found correct. The photocopy of the verification report dated 22.08.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That after another communication with the Didho Kanho Birsa University, Purulia, West Bengal, the District Inspector of Schools, Balrampur was informed that the verification report dated 22.08.2022 is also fake and fabricated. That the applicant applied for her B.Ed. from Didho Kanho Birsa University, Purulia, West Bengal through one Amar Kumar Singh along with several students. That after completing the same, the applicant has annexed the same at the time of selection to the post in question however, the appointment of the applicant was not based on her B.Ed. certificate, she was appointed to the post on the basis of Net (U.G.C.) and Urdu Graduation. That the applicant is herself a victim as the middleman of the Didho Kanho Birsa University, Purulia, West Bengal cheated the applicant and now the applicant has come to know that the college, from where the applicant completed her B.Ed. took excess admission as such for grabbing the fee of the lot of students, supplied the forged documents. That the applicant has no concern with the fabrication of the forged document and also she has not used the same with malafide intention to get an appointment to the post in question as such Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. are not applicable upon her. That neither the applicant has a motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself shows that no prima-facie offense under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Balrampur is made out against the applicant. That without proper investigation of the case crime, even after knowing everything with regard to the incident, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet against the applicant on 17.09.2023, in a very illegal manner. That the applicant moved bail application No. 1262 of 2023 before the learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 26.10.2023. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 26.10.2023 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That the applicant has been in jail since 00.00.0000 without committing any offense. That apart from the present case crime, no any criminal history against the applicant. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail, in relation to Case Crime No. 266 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. relating to the Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Balrampur, in the interest of justice. |
I, Laukush Yadav aged about 27 years son of Shri Ram Naresh resident of Village – Madhwa Nagar Khdar, Kuti Ramtalaha, Police Station - Pachpedawa, District - Balrampur, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – ___________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the husband/ pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the unknown persons on 13.09.2023 at 16.30 hours by the informant/deponent bearing Case Crime No. 328 of 2023 under Section 302 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Pachpedawa, District – Balrampur. The certified/ typed copy of the first information report dated 13.09.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 13.09.2023 at 9 a.m., the deponent/informant's wife i.e. the applicant fought with him and went with both daughters near Dhadhia Nala on the north side of the village. On getting information, the deponent/informant reached Dhadhia Nala to convince him and was going back home with his elder daughter Roshni. The applicant in the same anger, threw younger daughter Ragini aged about 8 months, into Dhadhia Nala. After a lot of searching in the drain by the informant and other people of the village, Ragine was found lying dead in the drain. That the body of the deceased was brought to the P. M., Balrampur for conducting the post-mortem on 14.09.2023, where the post-mortem was conducted and the cause of the death was ascertained as ‘Antimortem drowing”. The photo/ typed copy of the post-mortem report dated 14.09.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the deponent/informant lodged the first information report in the heat of the moment, which is totally false and baseless and the same depends upon the concocted story as such nothing happened as alleged by him in his first informant report. That the investigating officer recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 13.09.2023 in which the deponent/informant repeated his first information report version. Here it is relevant to mention that the deponent/informant gave his statement when he was angry with the applicant and was not able to think in right manner. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 13.09.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That a forged and fabricated arresting-cum-recovery memo was prepared by the concerned police on 15.09.2023 and showed that the applicant was arrested by them from far away from home, while the applicant was brought by the concerned police from the house of the deponent/informant for questioning and later on showed her arrest. The typed copy of the arresting/recovery memo dated 15.09.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That it is most humbly submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been implicated in the instant case by the deponent/informant himself due to conspiracy of the village party bandi. That it is also unbelievable a mother would throw her 8-month-old daughter into the canal willfully. That the real story is that there was some conflict among the women at home of the deponent’s family i.e. applicant and her in-laws. The applicant has 8 months baby and has to do all household work and no one used to take the child. That on 13.09.2023, the applicant took her child alone to defecate and started defecating by sitting the child. Meanwhile, she slipped and went into the canal. That the applicant does not know how to swim, yet she tries to save the child by entering the water. On the alarm of the applicant, the people of the village also entered the canal and searched and found the body of the girl. The child died due to drowning. That thereafter the Village Pradhan, who had enmity with the deponent/informant stated to him that his signature was required for the post-mortem of his daughter. That the applicant signed the blank paper and an application for lodging the first information report was moved by the Village Pradhan due to political enmity. That here it is relevant to mention that if the applicant’s child was thrown away by her, she would have sustained injuries in the canal, but there was no injury to the child. That the applicant has no concern with the death of her daughter in any manner and her daughter slipped in the canal. That neither the applicant has a motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself shows that no prima-facie offense under Section 304 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Pachpedawa, District – Balrampur is made out against the applicant. That without proper investigation of the case crime, even after knowing everything with regard to the incident, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet against the applicant on 24.09.2023, in a very illegal manner. That the applicant moved bail application No. 1186of 2023 before the learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 10.10.2023. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 10.10.2023 passed by court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That the applicant has been in jail since 15.09.2023 without committing any offense. That apart from the present case crime, no any criminal history against the applicant. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail, in relation to Case Crime No. 328 of 2023 under Section 304 of I.P.C. relating to the Police Station – Pachpedawa, District – Balrampur, in the interest of justice. |
I, Badam Singh aged about 53 years, Son of Shri Kamta Prasad, resident of Village School Ke Paas, Rajgarh, 33Bn PAC, District - Jhansi, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is himself the applicant/accused in the above-referred complaint case and as such is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case deposed hereunder. That this is the first Bail Application of the applicant in the above-referred criminal case, before this Hon'ble Court. The applicant has not preferred any other Bail Application with regard to the aforesaid criminal Case before this Hon'ble Court or any Higher Court of Law. That the complainant moved a complaint regarding the dishonor of check No. 618158 of Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank, Branch - Jhansi, District - Jhansi amounting to Rs. 1,47,613/-, which was allegedly given to him by the applicant, which has been registered as complaint No. 7736 of 2022. That the brief of the case is that the son of the applicant took a vehicle loan from the complainant amounting to Rs. 1,25,000/- in which the applicant was a guarantor and signed an agreement with the complainant on 26.04.2019. According to the agreement the loan will be repaid through 32 Equated Monthly Installments along with other charges. That the applicant was given a blank and undated cheque No. 618158 against the said loan at the time of processing of the loan as demanded by the complainant, which was as surety of the vehicle loan taken by the applicant’s son. That later on, after failing to pay EMIs by the son of the applicant to the complainant. Therefore the complainant mentioned Rs. 1,47,613/- in the said cheque, and the same was presented to the bank by complainant without any information to the applicant. That the applicant is willing to ready pay the rest amount of the loan, as the applicant has liability for said amount only. That as a matter of fact the complaint of the complainant is based upon misconceived, baseless, and false facts. That the applicant is a respectable member of the society and is ready to furnish adequate and reliable sureties for his release on bail. That the allegation against the applicant is under Section 138 of NI Act, which is bailable offences. That the allegations against the applicant are not of heinous nature and he is not a previous convict. That the informant has further leveled totally absurd allegations against the applicant/accused in the above-referred case on the basis of wrong impression and presumption, which is totally unbelievable. That in view of what has been stated above, it becomes clear that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Place: Lucknow Deponent |
I, Fatima Bano aged about 25 years daughter of Mohd. Muslim resident of House No. 103, Purani Divani, Dahilamau, District – Pratapgarh , Religion – Muslim, Education – Literate, Occupation – Studding, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the daughter of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and her photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the unknown persons on 30.10.2015 at 01:30 PM by the informant namely Smt. Kanchan Shukla under section 302 I.P.C. at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh as the husband of the informant namely Indramani Shukal (hereinafter referred to as deceased) has murdered by unknown persons on 29.10.2015 about 08.00 PM. The photocopy of the first information report dated 30.10.2015 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That as per first information report, the alleged incident took place on 29.10.2015 about 08:00 P.M. and the first information report was lodged next day i.e. 30.10.2015 about 01:30 PM i.e. after 17:30 hours of the alleged incident without explanation of any delay while the distance between the incident place and police station is only 5 Kilometers and the deceased was famous lawyer of the District Pratapgarh. That according to the first information report on 29.10.2015 about 07:00 PM four came to the home of the deceased and asked from the informant about deceased. Thereafter about 08:15 the milkman of the informant informed her as about 200 miters of the home one injured person was therein in car and car is similar as yours. Then the informant and other residents run to the incident place where they found the deceased was injured. He was brought to the hospital but he was declared as dead. That the post mortem has been conducted on the deceased body on 30.10.2015 about 12.30PM in District Hospital, District – Pratapgarh. Photo/type copies of the post mortem report dated 30.10.2015 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That the concerned police recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 30.10.2015 in which the informant repeated the contents of the first information report in another manner but the sole of the first information report has not been changed ever. The type copy of the statement of the informant dated 30.10.2015 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the applicant has no concerned with the murder of the deceased in any manner as alleged by the concerned police and allegation against the applicant under section 120B IPC. That on 11.11.2015 the informant moved an application before the investigating officer to given information in regard to murder of deceased wherein she alleged against the applicant as being advocate the deceased charged free Rs. 50000/- for bail and due to failure of the obtaining bail order for sons of the applicant, the applicant demanded her money and also threatened for life to deceased. Similar to above application the junior of the deceased namely Tauseef Ahamad also given an application before the investigating officer on 12.11.2015. The photo/type copy of the application dated 11.11.2015 & 12.11.2015 are being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That on basis of the application dated 11.11.2015 of the informant the concerned police recorded her further statement on 12.11.2015 and on basis of the further statement of the informant the Section 120B has been added in said case crime. The type copy of the further statement of the informant is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That in perusal of the further statement of the informant and another application dated 12.11.2015 moved by the junior of the deceased are pre-planned for showing implication of the applicant’s name in the said case crime. That if any life threats given by the applicant as alleged against her then why not deceased and anyone who knows that, not informed to the concerned police before the murder of the deceased. That neither the applicant has motive nor has any motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question with which the applicant has no concerned in any manner. That the name of the applicant came in light in said case crime due undue influence of the local advocates of the District Pratapgarh and the concerned police also showing the good work after false implication of the applicant in the said case crime. That earlier the first information report was registered 4 unknown persons but later on, on the basis of the application dated 11.11.2015 of the informant the applicant has also been made accused in the present case. That there is no credible evidence on record which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on record itself show that no prima-facie offence under section 302, 120B I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive which given in case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has no reason to murder the deceased. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1760 of 2015 before Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Pratapgarh and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 02.12.2015. Certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 02.12.2015 is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this application. That the applicant in jail since 14.11.2015. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Sanjay Kumar aged about 35 years son of Shri Sant Lal resident of Room No. 11, Matadeen Yadav Chal No. 3, Tanaji Nagar, Kurar Village, Mumbai, Maharastra, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Self-employed, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the brother/ pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to him as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the applicant and another on 29.05.2024 at 23.49 hours by Sonu Kumar Saroj son of Shri Ram Dulare Saroj resident of Umaraoganj, Lalgopalganj, Police Station – Nawabganj, District – Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) under Sections 302 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Hathigawan District – Pratapgarh. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 29.05.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 29.05.2024 by the informant alleged therein that the marriage of the sister of the informant namely Reena Devi (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) before 8 years ago. On 29.05.2024 due to the love relationship, the applicant, his mother, and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) murdered the deceased. The informant further alleged that the accused persons also beat the deceased for the dowery. That the informant has lodged the first information report only on a presumption basis, while he himself not clear that the applicant and other accused committed the crime as alleged by him. That the version of the first information report is totally false and baseless and the same depends upon the concocted story and nothing has been done by the applicant as alleged by the informant in his first informant report. That the concerned police recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 30.05.2024 in which the informant gave approximately the same statement as mentioned in the first information report but with improved facts to send the applicant behind bars. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 30.05.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the inquest report was prepared by the concerned police on 30.05.2024 in the presence of Panchan as well as the informant. That the body of the deceased was brought for conducting a post-mortem on the very same day i.e. 30.05.2024, where the post-mortem was conducted by the doctor concerned and the cause of death ascertained as ‘anti-mortem head injury’. The photo/ type copy of the post-mortem report dated 30.05.2024 of the deceased is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the some statements of the alleged eyewitnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 30.05.2024, in which they all gave all most similar statements and stated that they saw that the applicant was beating the deceased after locking the door of his house from inside. The typed copies of the alleged eyewitnesses dated 30.05.2024 are being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses are beyond the imagination as when the door is locked from inside then there was no chance they saw anything, which was happened as alleged by the informant. That meanwhile a forged arresting memo was prepared by the concerned police on 04.06.2024 at around 16.45 PM showing the applicant was arrested when he was trying to abscond. That the confessional statement of the applicant was written/ prepared by the investigating officer on 04.06.2024 tallying with the statements of the informant and other witnesses only to prove the offence against the applicant whereas the applicant has not given any confessional statement. That thereafter, on 04.06.2024 again the Investigating Officer of the case crime, prepared false documents i.e. recovery memo, and showed therein that on pointing of the applicant the murder weapon had been recovered. The typed copy of the recovery memo dated 04.06.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the charge sheet No. 128 of 2024 has been filed by the concerned police against the applicant on 03.08.2024 under Section 302 of I.P.C., in 14 out of 20 witnesses are the factual witnesses. That the applicant was arrested by the concerned police on 04.06.2024 merely on the basis being the husband of the deceased without rhyme and reason, while the applicant was not involved in the commission of the crime as alleged against him. That the real fact of the case is that the marriage of the applicant and deceased was solemnized around 13 years ago not 8 years as alleged by the informant and the applicant is the father of three minor children and the younger child of the applicant is aged about 3 years. That the applicant is working as a brickfield labour at Bhivandi, Maharastra for the livelihood of his family meanwhile the deceased has an illicit relationship with one Premchandra Yadav. That when the mother of the applicant informed regarding the illicit relationship of the deceased then the applicant returned to his house and tried to convince the deceased for not doing the same, for which, the deceased agreed. That when the applicant again went to resume his work in Maharashtra, the deceased again started chatting with his lover and also called him at the house of the applicant thereafter on 29.05.2024, without any prior information of the deceased, he returned to the home and found that the deceased was chatting with her lover when she saw the applicant, she tried to run away and she sliped from the first floor and sustained injuries. That the applicant with the help of his cousin brother brought the deceased to the hospital, but she died and after getting information, the informant in the heat of the moment and also provocation of some villagers, who had enmity with the applicant, lodged the first information report on the basis of the wrong facts. That neither the applicant has any motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. Merely being the husband of the deceased, the applicant has been framed in the said case crime. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Sections 302 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive which given in case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police and informant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 3458 of 2022 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 19.09.2024. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the applicant in jail since 29.05.2024 without the commission of any offense. That the applicant has no any criminal history nor previously been convict. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 110 of 2024 under Sections 302 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh during the pendency of the case, in the interest of justice. |
I, Hazifur Rahman son of Arkhul Rahman, resident of Village – Bachhandamau, Police Station – Hathgawan, District – Pratapgarh Religion – Muslim, Education – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the brother of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the 3 named and 3 unnamed persons on 25.02.2016 at 00.15 hours by the informant namely S.O., Police Station – Manikpur, Shri Pramod Kumar Singh under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C. and 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act at Police Station – Manikpur, District – Pratapgarh with regard to murder of on duty Homeguard Mahadev Prasad (hereinafter referred to as deceased). The alleged incident was took place on 24.02.2016 around 23.30 hours. The photocopy of the first information report dated 25.02.2016 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is not named in the first information report. According to the first information report lodged on 25.02.2016 by informant, in which he alleged that around 23.30 hours the most wanted criminal of area along with others criminals fired and bombard on the Police Station – Manikpur and run away from incident place. The informant and his companions tried to catch him failed to do so. That the post mortem was conducted at District Hospital, Pratapgarh on 25.02.2016 by the doctor concerned. The cause of death ascertained as “Shock due to coma as a result of Anti-mortem firearm injury”. The photo/typed copy of the post mortem report dated 25.02.2016 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That the concerned police arrested the accused of the said case crime namely Shiva alias Shivmani Tiwari and Vikash Mishra and they were given their confessional statement before the concerned police but they have said the name of the applicant. The typed copy of the confessional statement of the accused Shiva alias Shivmani Tiwari is being annexed herewith collectively as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the concerned police was called the applicant on 26.02.2016 for some queries with regard to incident and falsely implicate him in said crime case for ulterior motive. The concerned police forcefully taken confessional statement of the applicant and on said basis he was in jail. The typed copy of the confessional statement of the applicant is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That the concerned police without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet bearing No. 48 of 2016 dated 19.05.2016 against the applicant and 3 others persons. That the real story is this; the applicant is common and law abiding citizen, on 26.02.2016, the applicant was called by the concerned police for the asking about the incident took place at Police Station – Manikpur but he was arrested by the concerned police and concerned police forcefully taken his confessional statement and falsely implicate. The applicant falsely implicate in several cased thereafter. That neither the applicant has motive nor any motive has been assigned to him to commit the crime in question and the motive to commit the crime in question has been assigned by the concerned police. That the applicant has no concerned with the murder of the deceased in any manner as alleged by the concerned police and allegation against the applicant and also the prosecution story is totally against the evidence and same is not reliable in manner so far concerned to the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question, except his confessional statement, which was taken forcefully by the concerned police and the evidence available on record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Section 302, 307, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C. and 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act at Police Station – Manikpur, District – Pratapgarh is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive which given in case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant/concerned police in malafide intention. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 941 of 2017 before Special/ Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 02.08.2017. Certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 02.08.2017 passed by the court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That two other co-accused of the aforesaid case crime namely Pradeep Kumar Tiwari alias Rohit and Vipin Kumar Pandey, have been released on bail by this Hon'ble Court. The photocopy of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this application. That the applicant in jail since 26.02.2016 without committing any offence. The applicant has not convicted ever before. That after arresting the applicant the concerned police falsely implicate the applicant in several cases as under: Case Crime No. 36 of 2016 under Section 302, 307, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station – Manikpur, District – Pratapgarh. Case Crime No. 37 of 2016 under Section 307 IPC, Police Station – Manikpur, District – Pratapgarh. Case Crime No. 38 of 2016 under Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station – Manikpur, District – Pratapgarh. Case Crime No. 41 of 2016 under Section 307, 504, 506 IPC and 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh. Case Crime No. 22 of 2016 under Section 396, 412 IPC, Police Station – Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Brijesh Kumar son of Shri Basudev ageda about 45 years resident of House NO. 4, Village – Bojhi, Police Station – Mandhata, District Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Illiterate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the relative of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this or rejected by this . That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the applicant and 8 other persons on 25.01.2014 at 19.00 hours by the informant Ikhlak Ahamad under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352 I.P.C. at Police Station –Antu, District – Pratapgarh as the brothers of the informant namely Pappu alias Istkhar Ahmad and Anees Ahamad (hereinafter referred to as deceased) have murdered by applicant and 8 other person on 25.01.2014. The photocopy of the first information report dated 25.01.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That as per first information report, the alleged incident took place on 25.01.2014 at 5.00 P.M. and the first information report was lodged on same day at 07.00 P.M. i.e. after 2 hours of the alleged incident, while the distance between the incident place and police station is only 9 Kilometers and the informant was having motorcycle. That according to the first information report the informant was present everywhere i.e. from Chamanganj Bazar, which place the deceased was picked and he was also called his cousin brothers namely Maksood Ahmad and Azaz Ahamd and all three are followed the deceased till incident place but not raised alarm at any point in any manner. That as a matter of record, the first information report was not lodged after two hours of the alleged incident, it has been lodged after much delay of the alleged incident, which is itself clear from perusal of the inquest reports of the deceased persons as in the inquest reports, it is clearly mentioned that the information regarding the death of deceased persons was given at police station on 25.01.2014 at 11.20 P.M. and on 26.01.2014 at 00.35 A.M. by Ward Boy Sita Ram and on the inquest report no case number is mentioned. Photo/type copies of the inquest reports of the deceased persons are being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That from perusal of the first information report, it is clear that it had been registered under section 302 I.P.C. about 4 ½ hours prior to the information of the death of deceased persons. The fact itself creates doubt on the genuineness of the first information report. That it is admitted case of the prosecution that neither the complainant nor his cousins (alleged eye witnesses) have received any type of injury in the alleged incident. This fact itself creates doubt on the presence of complainant and his cousins at the place of alleged incident. That the post mortem reports of the deceased persons do not corroborate the prosecution case as in the post mortem report of deceased Anees three injuries have been reported and in the post mortem report of Istikhar alias Pappu, two injuries have been reported, while as per prosecution all the accused persons badly assaulted the deceased persons and further no fire arm injury has been found on the body of deceased persons. Photo/type copies of the post mortem report dated 26.01.2014 are being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That a bare perusal of the post mortem reports of deceased persons reveals that deceased persons died due to head injury and the prosecution is silent on this point that who is author of the those fatal injuries. Typed copy of the statement of the informant is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That the D.F.O. Anand Kumar Srivastava and Ranger Shiv Shankar Singh, who have been made eye witness of the alleged incident, did not support the prosecution story in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.. Photocopies of the statements of D.F.O. Anand Kumar Srivastava and Ranger Shiv Shanker Singh recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. are being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That neither the applicant has motive nor any motive has been assigned to him to commit the crime in question and the motive to commit the crime in question has been assigned to the co-accused Ram Pratap, with whom the applicant has no concerned in any manner. That the role of the causing injury by danda has been assigned to the applicant and the false recovery of danda has been also shown on his pointing out, while the reality is that nothing has been recovered by the pointing out of the applicant and the alleged recovery of the danda is false & fabricated and planted on, which is itself evident from this very fact that the alleged recovery has been shown from an open place, which is easy approach of every person and further there is no independent witnesses of the alleged recovery. Photo/type copy of the forged recovery memo is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this application. That after perusal of the post mortem report, it’s clear that there is no any gahdala injuries on any deceased persons. That the alleged incident is said to have been taken place in dusky hours of winter evening and no source of light has been disclosed. That earlier the first information report was registered only against 9 persons but later on, during the course of investigation, two persons have also been made accused in the present case. That as a matter of fact, the deceased persons were hardened criminal and they have been murdered due to their criminal activities and later on, after having the knowledge of the death of the his brothers, the informant managed lodging a false first information report against applicant and 8 other persons, with whom he is on inimical terms, by taking the illegal benefits of death of his brothers. That there is no credible evidence on record which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on record itself show that no prima-facie offence under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive which given in case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has no reason to murder the deceased. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 627 of 2014 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 15.07.2014. Certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 15.07.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this application. That the applicant filed certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 15.07.2014 because free copy of the bail rejection order is being never received. The bail application moved before the court below along with five persons and same is rejected by one order dated 15.07.2014. That the applicant in jail since 06.02.2014. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Brijesh Kumar son of Shri Basudev ageda about 45 years resident of House NO. 4, Village – Bojhi, Police Station – Mandhata, District Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Illiterate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the relative of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this or rejected by this . That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the applicant and 8 other persons on 25.01.2014 at 19.00 hours by the informant Ikhlak Ahamad under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352 I.P.C. at Police Station –Antu, District – Pratapgarh as the brothers of the informant namely Pappu alias Istkhar Ahmad and Anees Ahamad (hereinafter referred to as deceased) have murdered by applicant and 8 other person on 25.01.2014. The photocopy of the first information report dated 25.01.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That as per first information report, the alleged incident took place on 25.01.2014 at 5.00 P.M. and the first information report was lodged on same day at 07.00 P.M. i.e. after 2 hours of the alleged incident, while the distance between the incident place and police station is only 9 Kilometers and the informant was having motorcycle. That according to the first information report the informant was present everywhere i.e. from Chamanganj Bazar, which place the deceased was picked and he was also called his cousin brothers namely Maksood Ahmad and Azaz Ahamd and all three are followed the deceased till incident place but not raised alarm at any point in any manner. That as a matter of record, the first information report was not lodged after two hours of the alleged incident, it has been lodged after much delay of the alleged incident, which is itself clear from perusal of the inquest reports of the deceased persons as in the inquest reports, it is clearly mentioned that the information regarding the death of deceased persons was given at police station on 25.01.2014 at 11.20 P.M. and on 26.01.2014 at 00.35 A.M. by Ward Boy Sita Ram and on the inquest report no case number is mentioned. Photo/type copies of the inquest reports of the deceased persons are being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That from perusal of the first information report, it is clear that it had been registered under section 302 I.P.C. about 4 ½ hours prior to the information of the death of deceased persons. The fact itself creates doubt on the genuineness of the first information report. That it is admitted case of the prosecution that neither the complainant nor his cousins (alleged eye witnesses) have received any type of injury in the alleged incident. This fact itself creates doubt on the presence of complainant and his cousins at the place of alleged incident. That the post mortem reports of the deceased persons do not corroborate the prosecution case as in the post mortem report of deceased Anees three injuries have been reported and in the post mortem report of Istikhar alias Pappu, two injuries have been reported, while as per prosecution all the accused persons badly assaulted the deceased persons and further no fire arm injury has been found on the body of deceased persons. Photo/type copies of the post mortem report dated 26.01.2014 are being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That a bare perusal of the post mortem reports of deceased persons reveals that deceased persons died due to head injury and the prosecution is silent on this point that who is author of the those fatal injuries. Typed copy of the statement of the informant is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That the D.F.O. Anand Kumar Srivastava and Ranger Shiv Shankar Singh, who have been made eye witness of the alleged incident, did not support the prosecution story in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.. Photocopies of the statements of D.F.O. Anand Kumar Srivastava and Ranger Shiv Shanker Singh recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. are being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That neither the applicant has motive nor any motive has been assigned to him to commit the crime in question and the motive to commit the crime in question has been assigned to the co-accused Ram Pratap, with whom the applicant has no concerned in any manner. That the role of the causing injury by gahdala has been assigned to the applicant and the false recovery of gahdala has been also shown on his pointing out, while the reality is that nothing has been recovered by the pointing out of the applicant and the alleged recovery of the gahdala is false & fabricated and before the alleged incident i.e. 06.01.2014 and planted on, which is itself evident from this very fact that the alleged recovery has been shown from an open place, which is easy approach of every person and further there is no independent witnesses of the alleged recovery. Photo/type copy of the forged recovery memo is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this application. That after perusal of the post mortem report, it’s clear that there is no any gahdala injuries on any deceased persons. That the alleged incident is said to have been taken place in dusky hours of winter evening and no source of light has been disclosed. That earlier the first information report was registered only against 9 persons but later on, during the course of investigation, two persons have also been made accused in the present case. That as a matter of fact, the deceased persons were hardened criminal and they have been murdered due to their criminal activities and later on, after having the knowledge of the death of the his brothers, the informant managed lodging a false first information report against applicant and 8 other persons, with whom he is on inimical terms, by taking the illegal benefits of death of his brothers. That there is no credible evidence on record which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on record itself show that no prima-facie offence under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive which given in case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has no reason to murder the deceased. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 627 of 2014 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 15.07.2014. Certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 15.07.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this application. That the applicant filed certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 15.07.2014 because free copy of the bail rejection order is being never received. The bail application moved before the court below along with five persons and same is rejected by one order dated 15.07.2014. That the applicant in jail since 06.02.2014. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Narendra Bahadur Singh aged about 45 years son of Shri Anand Bahadur Singh resident of Sarai Khande, Dughvan, Sarai Khande Mu, District - Raebareli, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Self-employed, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the uncle/ pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief fact of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the unknown person on 08.05.2023 at 06.45 hours by Dilip Kumar Sharma, Sub Inspector, Police Station – Kheron, District - Raebareli resident of Village – Ajgara Raniganj, Police Station – Kheeron, District – Raebareli (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) under Section 307 of IPC at Police Station – Kheeron District – Raebareli regarding incident dated 16.08.2022. The photo/typed copy of the first information report dated 10.05.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 08.05.2023 by the informant alleged therein that on 06.05.2023, when he was patrolling he received information around 09.00 PM that in a Tilakuttasav, an unknown person fired due to which Raju Mishra was shot in the stomach and injured brought to the hospital. That the first information lodged by the informant is delayed about 2 days without giving any explanation of the delay, which creates doubt about the prosecution story. That the informant has lodged the first information report only on a presumption basis, while he himself is not clear that the applicant committed the crime as alleged by him. The informant just said, in his first information report he just came to know that an unknown person fired in a function. That the injured have been brought to the District Hospital, Raebareli, on 06.05.2023 where the injury report has been prepared by the concerned doctor. However, it has not been cleared by the doctor concerned as he stated that the injury was caused by a suspected firearm. The photo/typed copy of the injury report of the injured dated 06.05.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That after initial treatment of the injured, he was discharged on the very same day i.e. on 06.05.2023 and referred to the Department of Trauma, K.G.M.U, Lucknow. The photocopy of the discharge slip dated 06.05.2023 issued by the District Hospital, Raebareli is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the version of the first information report is totally false and baseless and the same is depends upon the concocted story and nothing has been done by the applicant as alleged by the informant in his first informant report. That the concerned police recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 08.05.2023 in which the informant has given approximately the same statement as mentioned in the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 08.05.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That several statements of the witnesses have been recorded by the investigating officer on 08.05.2023 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which they said they only heard the gunshot but they don’t know who fired. The typed copies of the statements of the witnesses of the case are being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That on 08.05.2023, the injured died thereafter the wife of the deceased injured moved an application before the Station House Officer, Police Station - Kheeron, District - Raebareli stating therein that her husband was shot on 06.05.2023 in a function and during treatment at K.G.M.U., Lucknow on 08.05.2023 at 09.00 AM and also introduced an eyewitness. The typed copy of the endorsement of the application moved by the wife of the deceased injured on 08.05.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That on the very same i.e. on 08.05.2023, the statements of the wife of the deceased injured and alleged eyewitness of the case crime, and both have named the applicant in their statement. The typed copies of the wife of the deceased injured and alleged eyewitness of the case crime are being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the investigating officer after recording the statement of the wife of the deceased injured and alleged eyewitness of the case crime, altered the Section of the Case Crime from Section 307 to 304 of I.P.C. on 08.05.2023 and the investigation of the case crime is still going on. The typed copy of the endorsement of the C.D. No. 2 dated 08.05.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That after the death of the injured, his dead body was brought for the post-mortem prepared by the doctor concerned on 08.05.2023 in which the cause of death has been ascertained as ‘anti mortem firearm injury’. The photo/typed copy of the post-mortem dated 08.05.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That the concerned police arrested the applicant on 10.05.2023 from his house showing his arrest far from his house for extraneous reasons and also recovered the gun used in said alleged incident. The typed copy of the arresting-cum-recovery memo dated 10.05.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident in any manner. That the applicant was indeed present at the function on 06.05.2023 and holding the firearm of one of his family members at that moment someone opened fire in the air, which injured a person. That the applicant had not been fired but he hold a firearm at the said function therefore after the death of the injured, his wife named the applicant along with an eyewitness. That till date the ballistic report has not been received by the concerned police to show that the applicant had fired on 06.05.2023 as alleged against him. That the wife of the deceased injured and alleged eyewitness of the case crime named the applicant in their statements merely on the basis of hearsay evidence, while the applicant has no concern with the said incident. That here it is relevant to mention that the informant has well aware that the injured is under treatment but he had not tried to record any statement of the injured. That nothing has been recovered from the applicant by the concerned police in relation to the aforesaid case crime. That the applicant was arrested by the concerned police on 10.05.2023 merely on the basis of false, incorrect and wrong statements of the wife of the deceased injured and alleged eyewitness of the case crime without rhyme and reason, while the applicant was not involved in the commission of the crime as alleged against him. That neither the applicant has any motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. Merely friend of another accused, the applicant, and other accused of the crime, the applicant has been framed in the said case crime. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Section 304 of IPC at Police Station – Kheeron, District – Raebareli is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police and informant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That the applicant moved bail application bearing Bail Application No. 1971 of 2023 before Sessions Judge, Raebareli, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 07.06.2023 without considering the grounds in his bail application. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 11 to this affidavit. That the applicant in jail since 10.05.2023 without the commission of any offense. That the applicant has no any previous criminal history. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 201 of 2023 under Section 304 of IPC registered at Police Station – Kheeron, District – Raebareli during the pendency of the case. |
I, Mohd. Islam aged about 35 years son of Mohd. Rafi resident of Village – Lawana, Police Station - Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Muslim, Education – Literate, Occupation – Band Master, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the brother of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this or rejected by this . That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against applicant and three family members of the applicant on 31.07.2014 on 14.30 hours by the father of the deceased namely Mohd. Arman, under section 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 The Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of wrong facts, the incident took place on 26.07.2014. The photocopy of the first information report dated 31.07.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That the informant stated in the first information report, the marriage of daughter of informant namely Shaziya Bano was solemnized with applicant on 23.02.2014 in group marriage in District – Pratapgarh without dowry. Just after marriage, the applicant and his family member was demanding dowry and when the demand of the applicant and his family member has not fulfilled in result of that they brutally murdered his daughter. That some spot witnesses namely Ayodhya Prasad Maurya and others given statement before the investigating officer as on 26.07.2014 near about 3.00 PM deceased quarreled with the applicant for leaving the family member of the applicant and wants to settle with the applicant in Mumbai, where the applicant residing for the livelihood of his family. Just after quarrel the deceased enter her room and locked from inside. When the deceased raised alarm for saving her life then the applicant and some other villagers tried to open the door but door was locked from inside. Thereafter the applicant enters the room from the back side of the home by using stair and opens the door from inside, where the deceased was burning and the applicant brought the deceased hospital for medication. The type copy of the statements of spot witnesses of the case is being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That after opening the door the applicant called the Ambulance by the helpline No. 108 and brings the deceased with family members to SRN Hospital, Allahabad for treatment and admitted in hospital at 07.25 PM. The photocopy of the hospital admission slip dated 27.07.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the inquest report was prepared by the concerned police on 27.07.2014 before the presence of ACM, Sushila at SRN Hospital, Mortuary, Allahabad and the Panchat are as under: 1. Mohd. Arman son of Mohd. Nasir resident of Pateullapur, Police Station – Manikpur, District – Pratapgarh, 2. Mohd. Murtaza son of Mustafa resident of Gaura, Police Station – Sorawan, District- Allahabad, 3. Mohd. Junaid son of Mohd. Arman resident of Pateullapur, Police Station – Manikpur, District – Pratapgarh 4. Aasheen son of Mohd. Safiq resident of Village – Lawana, Police Station - Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh 5. Mohd. Islam son of Ali Hasan resident of Varista, Police Station – Jethwara, District – Pratapgarh The type copy of the inquest report dated 27.07.2014 prepared by the investigating officer is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That the post mortem was done on body of the deceased on 27.07.2014 in MLN, Hospital, Allahabad at 4.00 PM. The photocopy of the post mortem report dated 27.07.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That the statement of the informant has been recorded by the investigating officer on 31.07.2014 wherein the informant repeated the version of his first information report. The type copy of the statement of informant dated 31.07.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this application. That the applicant belongs to very poor family and has bearing Antyoday Ration Card but the informant alleged the applicant and his family demanded one Motorcycle and Rs. 1,00,000/- same is unbelievable. The photocopy of the Antyoday Ration Card is being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this application. That charge sheet filed by the investigation officer on 06.11.2014 against only applicant including under section 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 The Dowry Prohibition Act. That the applicant has been arrested by the police on 20.08.2014 and moved the bail application before the court concerned and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 31.01.2015. The copy of the order dated 31.01.2015 passed by court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 08 to this application. That the applicant in jail since 20.08.2014 and has no criminal history. That investigating officer has not found any evidence against the other accused on the basis of statements of the spot witnesses. That the applicant was living in Mumbai for the survival/livelihood of his family members but the deceased always pressurized him to bring her to Mumbai and the deceased was always quarreled for this issue with the applicant but the economic status of the applicant has not allowed bringing the deceased to Mumbai. That on date of incident i.e. 26.07.2014, the deceased was start quarreling with applicant near about 01.00 PM and suddenly about 03.00 PM she run away in room and locked from inside and committed suicide. That on basis of said issue the deceased committed suicide and nothing was done by the applicant as alleged by the informant and proved the concerned police. That the applicant has no issue with the deceased in his life and both are very happy except above mentioned but the informant has lodged first information report on the wrong facts. That there is no any evidence found by the investigating officer in regard of demand of the dowry. After suicide of the deceased the informant cooked this story overnight. That the applicant is innocent and due to take revenge with informant falsely implicated in the aforesaid case crime. That there is no any evidence against the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid case crime and the only evidence against the applicant in regard of alleged offence is only false story and baseless ground, which was by the informant and the police. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has no reason to murder the deceased. That a false story cooked up by the concerned police and informant as the applicant committing the aforesaid case crime. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive, for the money, has been fabricated by the concerned police. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Suraj Kumar Singh aged about 18 years son of Hemant Singh resident of Dahilamau, Police Station – Kotawali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Perusing B.Sc. II year , do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the real brother of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant for doing pairvi of the case/ application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this or rejected by this . That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the applicant and one another & two unmanned persons on 31.07.2014 at 17.30 hours by the informant Ghanshyam Rawat under Section 452, 323, 504, 506, 354B I.P.C. and under Section 7/8 The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh. The photocopy of the first information report dated 31.07.2015 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That as per first information report, the alleged incident took place on 31.07.2014 at 01.00 P.M. as the applicant with other accused on 31.07.2014, when the daughter of the informant namely Ku. Rajni came back from her school, the accused persons beaten the daughter of the informant and also abusing to her. That the real incident is that, being resident of same locality of the accused and the informant, the daughter of the informant and accused/ applicant quarreled for passing the cycle on the road, when the victim returning home from her school. That thereafter informant become annoyed and decided to punished the accused person and for that purpose the informant putting the gravity of the case lodged the said first information report on the false ground and reason. That from perusal of the first information report, it is clear that the Section 7/8 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is not made against the applicant as the nothing was alleged and mentioned in first information report and as well as statement of the victim, which is essential element of the Section 7 of The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The fact itself creates doubt on the genuineness of the first information report. The type of the statement of the victim is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That the medical of the victim done at District Hospital, Pratapgarh on 31.07.2014 and as per medical report the one injury shown which is simple in nature. The photo/ type copy of the medical report dated 31.07.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the statement of the informant has been recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 31.07.2014 and also alleged eyewitnesses therein all repeat the first information report, nothing has been changed in their statements. The type copies of the informant and alleged eyewitness are being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That alleged eyewitness produced by the informant are not really eyewitnesses as the said incident not took place, they are well managed produced by the informant. That a minor quarreled between the victim and accused but due to ego of the informant, he cooked false incident and implicate the applicant. That the alleged incident is said to have been taken place in broad day and it is also impossible to the applicant to tried as alleged by the informant. That there is no credible evidence on record which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Section 452, 323, 504, 506, 354B I.P.C. and under Section 7/8 The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant. That the applicant is student and belongs to respected family of the society also and due to ego of the informant he falsely implicated in the said case crime. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1528 of 2015 before Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 1, Pratapgarh and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 18.09.2015. Certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 18.09.2015 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That the applicant in jail since 14.09.2015. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Ikrar Ahmad aged about 41 years son of Tajmmul Khan resident of Behsa, P/O 32 Bataliyan, Behsa, District – Lucknow, Religion – Muslim, Occupation – Private Job, Education – Literate, do hereby solemnly affirm and states on oath as under :- That the deponent is Mama of the applicant and doing pairvi of Applicant in the above-noted case and duly authorized by him for filing the instant application before the Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo of the deponent is pasted on the first page of this affidavit and a photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is annexed with this affidavit. That this is the first bail of the applicant filed before this Hon’ble Court and no other bail application on same cause of action is filed or pending in any court of law. That on 27.09.2018 at about 21.29 Hours, the informant Shri Ravindra Srivastava, Station House Officer, Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh lodged a first information report against 3 persons including the applicant at Case Crime No. 380 of 2020 under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh. The certified and typed copy of the first information report dated 27.09.2018 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the applicant is the gang leader of a gang, who is committing the offences in an organized manner regularly as they are habitual, for their economic benefit and due to their terror no one can dare to speak against them. That prior to lodging the aforesaid case crime against the applicant, the gang chart has been approved by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh on 17.09.2018. The photocopy of the gang chart approved by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is totally innocent and does not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report by the informant. That the informant in order to show his good and hard work, falsely implicated the applicant in several case crimes, which are pending before him, and thereafter finally lodged the said first information report dated 27.09.2018 under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act, The two cases mentioned in the gang chart are as below:- Case Crime No. 135 of 2018 under Sections 379, 411, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 218 of 2019 under Sections 394, 307, 302, 120B of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 63 of 2018 under Sections 392, 411 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 64 of 2018 under Sections 307, 411, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 68 of 2018 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act registered at Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 380 of 2018 under Sections 2/3 of Gangster Act registered at Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh, which is the present case, in which the bail application is moved. Case Crime No. 439 of 2017 under Sections 302, 392 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 467 of 2017 under Sections 323, 392 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 267 of 2007 under Sections 323, 392 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh, so far relates this case, this case is intentionally mentioned in the gang charge as the application was just about 7 years old, which the said case lodged. The photocopies of Bail orders passed by the court concerned are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is neither member of the alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involved in any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not commit any offence for his economical and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. The police for showing their good work falsely implicated the applicant in the said case crime. That the real fact is that the applicant is innocent and belongs to a respected family and has a good reputation. That the applicant is in jail since ____________ without committing any offence as alleged against him. That the applicant does not commit any offence for his economical and physical benefit. The applicant is not convicted previously in any case crime. The allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged, hence no offence under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 relating to Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh, is made against him. That the applicant had moved his bail application bearing number 2164 of 2019 before the Additional Session judge/Special Judge (Gangster), Room No. 5, Pratapgarh and same has been rejected on 17.01.2020. The free copy of the order dated 17.01.2020 misplaced by the deponent hence the certified copy of the order is annexed. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That the applicant is previously not convicted by any court of law. That the applicant further declares in compliance of the Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that the applicant is not committed any offense as alleged in the first information report and also he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail, if so granted by this Hon'ble High Court. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which was given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish personal bond and sureties to the entire satisfaction before the court, if the bail is granted to him. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial. |
I, Rajeev Kumar Singh aged about 50 years son of Shri Jagdeesh Singh resident of Village – Dalpatpur, Post – Dalpatpur Uparhar, District - Ayodhya, Education – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the maternal uncle (Mama)/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The photo affidavit slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and a photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to him as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail of the applicant filed before this Hon’ble Court and no other bail application on same cause of action is filed or pending in any court of law. That on 18.05.2024 at about 21.11 Hours, the informant Shri Ratan Kumar Sharma, Station House Officer, Police Station – Purakalandar, District – Ayodhya lodged a first information report against 6 persons including the applicant at Case Crime No. 163 of 2024 under section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Purakalandar, District – Ayodhya. The certified and typed copy of the first information report dated 18.05.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the applicant is a member of a gang, whose leader is Abhishek Singh alias Sarvan Singh, who is committing the offences in an organized manner regularly along with others gang member including its leader and they are habitual, for their economic benefit and due to their terror no one can dare to speak against them. That prior to lodging the aforesaid case crime against the applicant, the gang chart has been approved by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya on 18.05.2024. The photocopy of the gang chart approved by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya on 18.05.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That during the preparation of the gang chart by the authority concerned and approval of the same, no one followed the Standard Operating Procedure and Rules, 2021 for preparation and approval of the gang chart. That the gang chart dated 18.05.2024 was not prepared and proposed by initially by the Station House Officer, Police Station - Purakalandar, District - Ayodhya and forwarded to the first approving authority i.e. Circle Officer. That as per Rules, 2011 the Circle Officer forwarded the proposed gang chart to the Additional Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police along with relevant papers but on bare perusal of the gang chart, it was not prepared and proposed by the Station House Officer, Police Station - Purakalandar, District - Ayodhya and same has been prepared and proposed by the Circle Officer himself. That at the time of approval of the gang chart against the applicant, the authorities violated the guidelines/ law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Hon'ble High Court as well as Rules, 2021, by which the gang chart forwarding officer, at time of approval of the gang chart, written his comments by his own handwriting but here in this case, the forwarding officer comments were already printed on the gang chart and only initial has been put on the gang chart by the authority concerned. That here it is also relevant to mention that the entire gang chart, along with comments of the C.O., Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya, and District Magistrate, Ayodhya has been typed prior to approval of the same, which shows that the authorities have prejudice against the applicant. That no any approving authority applied its mind or gone through the papers prior to approving the gang chart hence the gang chart dated 18.05.2024 is null and void ab-initio. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is totally innocent and does not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report by the informant. That the informant in order to show his good and hard work, falsely implicated the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, Only one case is mentioned in the gang chart, which is as below:- Case Crime No. 522 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 308, 506, 34, 120-B of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Purakalandar, District – Ayodhya, in which the applicant has been granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 30.09.2024. The photocopy of the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is neither member of the alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involved in any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not commit any offence for his economical and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That the applicant is in jail since 07.12.2023 in connection with another case mentioned hereinabove and the concerned police taken remand in the present case crime on 19.05.2024, since then he is jail in present case. That the real fact is that the applicant is innocent and belongs to a respected family and has a good reputation. That the concerned police for showing their good work falsely implicated the applicant in the said case crime. That the applicant is in jail since 07.12.2023 without committing any offence as alleged against him. That the applicant does not commit any offence for his economical and physical benefit. The applicant is not convicted previously in any case crime. The allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged, hence no offence under Sections 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 relating to Police Station – Purakalandar, District – Ayodhya, is made against him. That the applicant had moved his bail application bearing number 1967 of 2024 before the Special Judge, Gangster Act/ Additional Session Judge, Fifth, Ayodhya and same has been rejected on 25.09.2024. The free copy of the bail rejection order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That the applicant is previously not convicted by any court of law. Apart from abovementioned there is no other criminal history against the applicant. That the applicant further declares in compliance of the Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that the applicant is not committed any offense as alleged in the first information report and also he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail, if so granted by this Hon'ble High Court. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which was given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish personal bond and sureties to the entire satisfaction before the court, if the bail is granted to him. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial. |
I, Shiv Pujan aged about 57 years son of Late Dubari Prasad resident of 542, Devkali Karanpur, Post – Pure Narshing Bhan, Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District - Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Government Servant, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father/ pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged against the four unknown person on 26.09.2023 at 22.16 hours by Rajendra Kumar Tiwari son of Shri Shambhu Nath Tiwari resident of Meera Bhawan, Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) under Sections 323, 394 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 26.09.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 26.09.2023 by the informant alleged that on 26.09.2023 at about 01.30 A.M. four persons came in a car without number plate and started beating him. The informant further stated that the police persons (Chetah Mobile Police) were present and record the incident and after his initial treatment then he found the 4-5 thousand has been looted. That on perusal of the first information report, it was very strange that the police personnel (Chetah Mobile Police) were there but they have not tried to stop the incident and just watched the entire alleged incident. That the informant was brought to the District Hospital, Pratapgarh for treatment on 26.09.2023, where he was medically examined and the injury of the informant was found simple in nature. The photo/typed copy of the injury report dated 26.09.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the informant stated in his first information report he was brought to the hospital by the police personnel just after alleged incident while his medical was prepared on 26.09.2023 at 04.00 P.M. and first information report lodged at 10.16 P.M.. That the informant has lodged the first information report only on a presumption basis, while the applicant has no concern with the said alleged incident. That on 27.09.2023, the statement of the informant was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. which is contrary to the first information report lodged by him. The informant stated that he has moved application for lodging first information report on next day of alleged incident while the informant moved application on very same of the alleged incident i.e. 26.09.2023. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 27.09.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the informant further stated in his statement that when the Chetah Mobile Police came at spot then the accused persons runaway from the place of occurance. That on 28.09.2023, a forged, false and fabricated recovery cum arresting memo has been prepared by the concerned police in which shown recovery of Rs. 1000.00 from the applicant and also recorded the confession of the applicant under the life threat, given by the concerned police, when he was arrested. The photo/typed copy of the recovery cum arresting memo dated 28.09.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the applicant was arrested from his house by the concerned police on 28.09.2023 around 08.00 A.M. and later on his fake and fabricated arresting memo has been prepared by them. That after the arrest of the applicant, on 02.10.2023 the further statement of the informant has been recorded by the concerned police in which he named the applicant and other accused. The typed copy of the further statement of the informant dated 02.10.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the informant in his further statement stated that as “vkW[k esa pksV yxus ds dkj.k mu O;fDr;ksa ds ckjs esa tku ugha ik;k Fkk” but later on, strangly he identify the applicant and others with their name and addresses. That the Investigating Officer, without proper investigation of the case crime, ignoring the truth of the case, a charge sheet No. 586 of 2023 has been filed by the concerned police against the applicant and 2 others on 29.10.2023 under Sections, 394, 412 of I.P.C.. That the real fact of the case crime is that the applicant has no concerns with the alleged incident as stated by the informant of the case crime. That on 26.09.2023, the applicant was returning from a function with his friends and stopped the shop of the informant for a tea break. That when the applicant and other were present at that place, which is nearby the Bus Stand, there was crowd and some dispute was arisen between the informant and some unknow person and after few minutes, they started beaten the informant. That later on, the applicant was arrested from his house by the concerned police and named in the connection to the aforesaid case crime. That the applicant is in jail 28.09.2023 without rhyme and reason, while the applicant was not involved in the commission of the crime as alleged against him. That neither the applicant has any motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Sections 394, 412 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police and informant. That since the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 2912 of 2023 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 08.11.2023. Free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the applicant in jail since 28.09.2023 without the commission of any offense & no any previous criminal history. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 644 of 2023 under Sections 363, 342 of IPC registered at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh during the pendency of the case, in the interest of justice. |
I, Samim aged about 58 years son of Jamilakhan, 143, Bhonka, District - Gonda, District - Gonda, Religion – Muslim, Education – Literate, Occupation – Self-employed, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the brother/ pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged against the unknown person on 19.03.2020 at 13.10 hours by Smt. Raj Kumari wife of Shri Devi Prasad Singh resident of Village – Lauhangpur Deeha, Police Station – Paraspur, District – Gonda (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) under Sections 363 of IPC at Police Station – Paraspur District – Gonda regarding incident dated 18.03.2020. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 19.03.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 19.03.2020 by the informant alleged that on 18.03.2020 at about 12.00 P.M. her daughter/victim aged about 14 years old, went outside of her house but late evening when she did not return to her house, then the informant searched her neighborhood and relatives and when no information was gathered about victim then she lodged the first information report. That the first information lodged by the informant was delayed about 25 hours without giving any explanation of the delay, which created doubt about the prosecution story. That the informant has lodged the first information report only on a presumption basis, while the applicant has no concern with the said alleged incident. That on 21.03.2020, the victim returned to her home thereafter, the informant informed the concerned Police Station regarding the arrival of the victim on 23.03.2020. On said date, the statement of the informant was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which she repeated her version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 23.03.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the concerned police recorded the statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 31.0 in which she stated that when she went to the mustered field, an unknown person tried to catch him then she ran away to the canal, where a person was present and she asked him to help her and drop her to her house then the said person brought her to his house, where she stayed for 4 days. The typed copy of the statement of the victim dated 31.03.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the medical of the victim was conducted on 26.05.2020 at District Women Hospital, Gonda, and the age of the victim was ascertained as 18 to 19 years by the doctor. The photo/typed copy of the medical dated 26.05.2020 and age determination certificate dated 28.05.2020 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the endorsement of the age determination of the victim has been endorsed in the CD-6 dated 29.03.2020 and the statement of the doctor concerned has been recorded on 24.06.2020, in which she stated that the rape has not been committed with the victim. The typed copy of CD-6 dated 29.03.2020 and the statement of the doctor dated 24.06.2020 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That on 02.06.2020, the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the concerned court, in which she changed her earlier statement and built a new story, to falsely implicate the applicant under the influence of her mother and some other persons. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That on the basis of the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. the name of accused Daddan, the applicant, Harinath Dubey and Nageshwar have come to light, and as the victim stated that Daddan and the applicant committed rape with her, therefore, Sections 376, 342, 120-B of IPC and Section 3, 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 added in said case crime. The investigating officer also opined that the incident is doubtful. The typed copy of the findings of the Investigating Officer dated 02.06.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the Investigating Officer had received several affidavits given by Surya Prakash, Chunnilal, Saraswati, Daya Shankar, Sanwal Prasad, Sunil Kumar, Shiv Kumar, Shobha, and Babloo addressing the Superintendent of Police, Gonda for proper investigation of the case crime and getting the CDR of accused Daddan and Shiv Pujan Dubey. The typed copy of the CD-19 dated 30.08.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That the supplementary medical report dated 09.06.2020 was received by the Investigation Officer in which mentioned that ‘No sperm seen in the smear exeed” and also there was no opinion was given regarding the rape of the victim. The typed copy of the CD-20 dated 31.08.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That the further statement of the victim was been recorded by the Investigating Officer on 31.08.2020, in which several specific questions were asked of her. The typed copy of the further statement of the victim dated 31.08.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That the Investigating Officer recorded statements of all persons, who have given their affidavit in support of accused Daddan and Shiv Pujan Dubey, in which they stated that due to animosity, the rivals of Daddan and Shiv Pujan Dubey have falsely implicated them with the help of informant and victim. The photocopy of the statements of the deponents of the affidavits are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 11 to this affidavit. That on 09.09.2020, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the wife of the applicant in which she stated the truth of the entire conspiracy and denied all allegations made against the applicant. Two other witnesses have also stated that the applicant has not committed the offense as alleged against him. The typed copy of the statement of the wife of the applicant and two other witnesses dated 09.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 12 to this affidavit. That the Investigating Officer, later on, dropped the name of the accused Daddan alias Raj Narayan and Shiv Pujan Dubey on the basis of the CDR of both accused. The typed copy of the endorsement of CD-22 dated 09.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 13 to this affidavit. That the statement of the applicant was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 12.09.2020, in which he gave all details of the incident, which happened on 18.03.2020, and denied the commission of offense as alleged against him by the victim. The typed copy of the statement of the applicant dated 12.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 14 to this affidavit. That the statements of some persons namely Yakoob, Rahmuddin, Nizamuddin, Rajesh Kumar, Ajay Singh, Chandra Bhan Singh, and Tej Babadur Singh were recorded Investigating Officer on 12.09.2020, in which they supported the story of the applicant. The typed copies of the statements of the witnesses dated 12.09.2020 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 15 to this affidavit. That the Investigating Officer of the case crime, on 12.09.2020 after concluding the investigation of the case crime gave a summary of the case and deleted Section 376, 120-B of IPC and 3, 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and also dropped the name of the Daddan alias Raj Narayan, Shiv Pujan Dubey and Nageshwar Mishra from the case crime. The typed copy of the endorsement of the Investigating Officer dated 12.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 16 to this affidavit. That the Investigating Officer, without proper investigation of the case crime, ignoring the truth of the case, a charge sheet has been filed by the concerned police against the applicant on 12.09.2020 under Sections, 363, 342 of IPC. The typed copy of the endorsement of the Investigating Officer in CD-23 dated 12.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 17 to this affidavit. That the real fact of the case crime is that the applicant has no concerns with the alleged incident as stated by the victim of the case crime. That on 18.03.2020, the victim met with the applicant and asked for lift. When the victim did not tell her destination, then the applicant asked where she wanted to go. The victim requested to bring her to his house. That the victim further stated that her mother had beaten her and thrown her from her house and she had been hungry for the last two days, If he would not help her then she commit suicide. That the applicant had no option then decided to help her and bring her to his home and thereafter went to in marriage function on 18.03.2020. When he returned on 19.03.2020 and asked for the details from the victim about her family members. That the applicant after several efforts, found out the family members of the victim and he handed over the victim to her mother on 21.03.2020 in the presence of some respectable persons in the area. That later on, the applicant came to know that the victim has alleged that the applicant has committed rape on her while the applicant in a bonafide manner help her. That the victim named the applicant in the said first information report merely to ruin the name & fame of Daddan alias Raj Narayan, Shiv Pujan Dubey, while the applicant has no concern with the said incident. That the applicant is in jail 21.08.2023 without rhyme and reason, while the applicant was not involved in the commission of the crime as alleged against him. That neither the applicant has any motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. Merely ruining the name and fame of Daddan alias Raj Narayan, Shiv Pujan Dubey, the applicant has been framed in the said case crime. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Sections 363, 342 of IPC at Police Station – Paraspur, District – Gonda is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police and informant. That since the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That the applicant surrendered before the court concerned on 03.08.2023 and moved bail application bearing No. 2101 of 2023 before Sessions Judge, Gonda and vide order dated 03.08.2023, the applicant was granted interim bail till 21.08.2023. The photocopy of the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the learned court below on 03.08.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 18 to this affidavit. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 2101 of 2023 before Sessions Judge, Gonda and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 21.08.2023. Free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 19 to this affidavit. That the applicant in jail since 21.08.2023 without the commission of any offense & no any previous criminal history. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 60 of 2020 under Sections 363, 342 of IPC registered at Police Station – Paraspur, District – Gonda during the pendency of the case, in the interest of justice. |
I, Dinesh Kumar Singh aged about 52 years son of Late Vijay Pal Singh resident of 715/605, Sabji Mandi, Karnalganj, District - Allahabad, Religion – Hindu, Education – LL.B., Occupation – Advocacy and the photograph of the deponent is affixed on the affidavit and his ID proof is enclosed with the affidavit, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the brother of the applicant duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. That this is the second bail application, first bail application No. 6827 of 2013 was rejected by Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi “J” on 04.04.2014. That on 30.04.2013 about 06.30 Hours the informant Shri Ram Mishra lodged a first information report against 05 persons including the applicant bearing Case Crime No. 192 of 2013 under Section section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307/34, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. And Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act in Police Station – Sangrampur, District – Amethi. The photo and typed copy of the first information report dated 30.04.2013 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the alleged accused as mentioned in the first information report, the applicant and other accused persons of the above case crime, armed with the iron rod, Lathi & Danda came at the door of the informant, where the father of the informant sitting in courtyard, all the accused persons caught hold and dragged him up to the tree by assaulting mercilessly. The mother and brother-in-law of the informant namely Girija Shankar with the help of 108 brought to the injured at Community Health Centre, Amethi from where he was referred to where he is being treated and there is least possibility of his survival. That the injured was hospitalized at Mayo Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd., Gomti Nagar, Lucknow on 30.04.2013 at 12.30 p.m. and was expired on 19.05.2013 at 06.40p.m.. The police of Gomti Nagar was informed for conducting the inquest through G.D. No. 44 at 07.20 p.m.. Photocopy of the letter dated 19.05.2013 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That the inquest was conducted on 20.05.2013 at 09.05 p.m. at Mayo Medical Centre, Police Station – Gomti Nagar, in presence of the informant and chance eye witness Girija Shankar as per information, death occurred due to sustaining the grievous injuries during mar-peet. Photocopy of the inquest report is being filed herewith annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That the doctor conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased on 20.05.2013at 3.30 p.m.. The death is ude to come as relult of anti-mortem head injury. The doctor has noted four injuries on the person of deceased, first is on the right side heads 3cm above the right ear, second injury is on the frond of right forearm 7.00 cm above right wrist joint, third injrry istated on the left forearm 9 cm above left wrist join, gourth injuries is right ankle joint. Photocopy of the autopsy report is being annexed herewith annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That it is admitted that the informant is not eye witness of the occurrence. His statement under 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 01.05.2013 and stated therein he was remained in private service at after hearing the news he came at the village. The statement of Girija Shankar Pandey resident of Padari, Gauriganj, District – Amethi stated therein the deceased was dragged by the applicant and others and was allegedly assaulted by Lathi, danda and iron rod. That thereafter the investigating offerthe statement in Smt. Rajpati wife of deceased stated in her statement that the applicant and co-accused Jitndra Singh have assaulted with Iron and Satyam and Ram Pratap assaulted by lathi and danda. The co-accused Sheetla Prasad caught hold the deceased in Osara and dragged him at the place of occurrence. Photo and copy of the witnesses are being herewith collectively as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That in the meantime the injured/deceased was being treated in , Gomti Nagar, and took his last breath on 19.05.2013. The case summary was prepared by Doctor Siddharth Singh who is hospital administrator. The Neuro Surgeon doctor Tarun Pandey has opined that the patient was referred for the head injury but there is no evidence of head injury. C.T. brain is normal. The group of doctors six in numbers have expressed their opinion that the patient progressed well in post operative period. The patient shifted to room on 07.05.2013 developed breathlessness (Penumonitis) on 08.05.2013 and was again shifted to I.C.U. expired on 19.05.2013. Dr. S. S. Gupta (M.D.) Chest was looking after the patient for respiratory problem. He was Tracheostomised by anti surgeon and was seen by me on 14.05.2013. The patient was also looked after by the plastic surgeon. The report of doctor who conducted post mortem is contrary with the report of the doctor who treated the patient from 01.05.2013 to 19.05.2013. Photo copy of the of the case summary given by the doctor Siddharth Singh Hospital in Administration dated 01.05.2013 is being herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That investigating officer took up investigation on 23.06.2013 again recorded the statement of the informant Shri Ram Mishra. He has stated that there was dispute of land, the accused persons armed with lathi, danda, iron rod surrounded his father. This incident was being witness by his brother-in-law and mother in side the house from the gap of the gates. The similar statement of Shri Rajpati and Girija Shankar Pandey without slight change. The investigating officer again recorded statement just to twist the story after seeing the post mortem. The investigating officer recorded the statement of doctor Unday Pratap Singh on 23.07.2013 who has stated that he was posted at C.H.C., Amethi and on 30.04.2013 at 9.00 a.m. examined injured Ram Akbal who was brought by 108 mobile vehicle, a that moment Naib Tahsildar Ajeet Singh also came there and recorded the dying declaration. It is to be noted that doctor Uday Pratap Singh has not given fitness certificate and he is referring that the condition of the patient was serious, the general conditions of the patient was very poor as mentioned in the injury report, in such circumstances, it is evident that the injured was not in position to make his statement. The dying declaration was manipulated and conducted under the political influence. Photo copy of the statement of doctor Uday Pratap Singh is being herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That the investigation officer has made recovery of two pieces brick and one peace danda of wood, blood stain on 02.05.2013. Photo copy of the recovery memo is being herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this affidavit. That the informant is not eye witness. Girija Shankar Pandey is the chance witness and brother-in-law of the informant. The statement of informant is to the effect that the incident was seen in side of the house is also belies the prosecution case. That the dying declaration is alleged to be concocted and manipulated. In the first information report weapon was lathi, danda and iron rod while in dying declaration dadasa, lathi and danda, bricks and the numbers of the accused were not specified. There was no injury report of gadasa and the same was not mentioned in first information report. In the first information report fire arm was alleged to be opened by katta while in dying declaration rifle has been attributed. In dying declaration the name of Sheetal has not been mentioned. The name of Ram Bahadur’s sons are not mentioned in first information report. The dying declaration is not in question answer form. That the dying declaration was recorded by the Tasildar on 30.04.2013 at C.H.C., Amethi. That the applicant and other co-accused persons have been falsely implicated only on the ground of suspicion as the murder of his father Samsher Singh, deceased Ram Akbal was accused along with other and was convicted under section 302 I.P.C. on 09.11.2000 in S.T. No. 141 of 1998 (State Versus Ram Akbal and others). The deceased filed an appeal being appeal No. 1048 of 2000 and he was on bail. The deceased Shamsher Singh was re-known advocate of District – Pratapgarh. That what absurd story has been cooked up by the prosecution that the person is having the rifle and tamancha will not used lathi, danda and iron rod. The first information report resembling with the autopsy report. The first information report is contradictory with the dying declaration. the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. is also not corroborating with each other. That after 2008 no any criminal case is registered against the applicant. Case crime No. 107 of 1997 under Section 374 I.P.C. and bonded Labour Act, the applicant is on bail case is pending. Case crime No. 122 of 2008 under Section 147, 148, 3223, 504,506 I.P.C., the applicant on bail, case is pending. Case is crime No. 143 of 2008 under Section 3 (1) Gunda Act withdraw of the notice by the then District Magitrate. Case crime No. 148 of 2008 under Section 110 Cr.P.C., the proceeding is dropped. The applicant is on bail and the same is pending. That the applicant is innocent. The criminal history shown against the applicant has been explained in the preceding paragraph. There is delay in lodging the first information report. There is contradiction in first information report and alleged dying declaration. The injured/deceased was assaulted by the persons with whom civil dispute was pending, even after loosing the case in the . He was forcibly having the possession. The deceased was convicted in the murder of the father of the applicant and was on bail by the , this was suspicion and the applicant schooling students were implicated. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is falsely implicated by the police persons without any reason and as such the applicant does not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report. That the applicant in jail since . That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Rana Pratap Singh aged about 23 years son of Shamsher Singh resident of House No. 140, Peethapur, Tashil – Lalganj Ajhara, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Pursuing Graduation, Occupation – Studying and the photograph of the deponent is affixed on the affidavit and his ID proof is enclosed with the affidavit, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the brother of the applicant duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. That this is the third bail application, first bail application No. 6827 of 2013 was rejected by Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi “J” on 04.04.2014 and the second bail application No. 8546 of 2014 has been dismissed as not press on 28.05.2015 by Hon'ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena “J”. The photocopy of the Hon'ble Court order dated 04.04.2014 passed in first bail application and order dated 28.05.2015 passed in second bail application are annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this affidavit. That on 30.04.2013 about 06.30 Hours the informant Shri Ram Mishra lodged a first information report against 05 persons including the applicant bearing Case Crime No. 192 of 2013 under Section section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307/34, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. And Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act in Police Station – Sangrampur, District – Amethi. The photo and typed copy of the first information report dated 30.04.2013 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the alleged accused as mentioned in the first information report, the applicant and other accused persons of the above case crime, armed with the iron rod, Lathi & Danda came at the door of the informant, where the father of the informant sitting in courtyard, all the accused persons caught hold and dragged him up to the tree by assaulting mercilessly. The mother and brother-in-law of the informant namely Girija Shankar with the help of 108 brought to the injured at Community Health Centre, Amethi from where he was referred to Lucknow where he is being treated and there is least possibility of his survival. That the injured was hospitalized at Mayo Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd., Gomti Nagar, Lucknow on 30.04.2013 at 12.30 p.m. and was expired on 19.05.2013 at 06.40p.m.. The police of Gomti Nagar was informed for conducting the inquest through G.D. No. 44 at 07.20 p.m.. Photocopy of the letter dated 19.05.2013 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That the inquest was conducted on 20.05.2013 at 09.05 p.m. at Mayo Medical Centre, Police Station – Gomti Nagar, Lucknow in presence of the informant and chance eye witness Girija Shankar as per information, death occurred due to sustaining the grievous injuries during mar-peet. Photocopy of the inquest report is being filed herewith annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the doctor conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased on 20.05.2013at 3.30 p.m. The death is due to coma as result of anti-mortem head injury. The doctor has noted four injuries on the person of deceased, first is on the right side heads 3cm above the right ear, second injury is on the frond of right forearm 7.00 cm above right wrist joint, third injury is stated on the left forearm 9 cm above left wrist join, fourth injury is on right ankle joint. Photocopy of the autopsy report is being annexed herewith annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That it is admitted that the informant is not eye witness of the occurrence. His statement under sec. 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 01.05.2013 and stated therein he was remained in private service at Delhi after hearing the news he came at the village. The statement of Girija Shankar Pandey resident of Padari, Gauriganj, District – Amethi stated therein the deceased was dragged by the applicant and others and was allegedly assaulted by Lathi, danda and iron rod. That thereafter the investigating officer recorded the statement of Smt. Rajpati wife of deceased who stated in her statement that the applicant and co-accused Jitndra Singh have assaulted with Iron rod and Satyam and Ram Pratap assaulted by lathi and danda. The co-accused Sheetla Prasad caught hold of the deceased in Osara and dragged him at the place of occurrence. Type copies of the statements of the witnesses are being annexed herewith collectively as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That in the meantime the injured/deceased was being treated in Mayo Hospital, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and took his last breath on 19.05.2013. The case summary was prepared by Doctor Siddharth Singh who is hospital administrator. The Neurosurgeon doctor Tarun Pandey has opined that the patient was referred for the head injury but there is no evidence of head injury. C.T. brain is normal. The group of doctors six in numbers have expressed their opinion that the patient progressed well in post-operative period. The patient shifted to room on 07.05.2013 developed breathlessness (Pneumonitis) on 08.05.2013 and was again shifted to I.C.U. expired on 19.05.2013. Dr. S. S. Gupta (M.D.) Chest was looking after the patient for respiratory problem. He was Tracheotomised by anti-surgeon and was seen by me on 14.05.2013. The patient was also looked after by the plastic surgeon. The report of doctor who conducted post mortem is contrary with the report of the doctor who treated the patient from 01.05.2013 to 19.05.2013. Photo copy of the of the case summary given by the doctor Siddharth Singh Hospital in Administration dated 01.05.2013 is being herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this affidavit. That according to the report given by the doctor Tarun Pandey (M.S., M.C.H., Neurosurgeon) deceased was referred to him but no evidence of head injury was found in the C.T. Scan report. That this fact has deliberately been concealed by the investigating officer of this case with some oblique motive and for this reason he has not taken the C.T. Scan plates on the record of the investigation of the case. That investigating officer took up investigation on 23.06.2013 again recorded the statement of the informant Shri Ram Mishra. He has stated that there was dispute of land, the accused persons armed with lathi, danda, iron rod surrounded his father. This incident was being witnesed by his brother-in-law and mother inside the house from the gap of the gates. The similar statement of Shri Rajpati and Girija Shankar Pandey without slight change. The investigating officer again recorded statement just to twist the story after seeing the post mortem. The investigating officer recorded the statement of doctor Unday Pratap Singh on 23.07.2013 who has stated that he was posted at C.H.C., Amethi and on 30.04.2013 at 9.00 a.m. examined injured Ram Akbal who was brought by 108 mobile vehicle, a that moment Naib Tahsildar Ajeet Singh also came there and recorded the dying declaration. It is to be noted that doctor Uday Pratap Singh has not given fitness certificate and he is referring that the condition of the patient was serious, the general conditions of the patient was very poor as mentioned in the injury report, in such circumstances, it is evident that the injured was not in position to make his statement. The dying declaration was manipulated and concocted under the political influence. Photo copy of the statement of Doctor Uday Pratap Singh is being filed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. That the investigation officer has made recovery of two pieces of brick and one piece of blood stained wooden danda, on 02.05.2013. Photo copy of the recovery memo is being herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That the informant is not an eyewitness Girija Shankar Pandey is the chance witness and brother-in-law of the informant is highly unreliable and a chance witness. The statement of informant is to the effect that the incident was seen in side of the house is also belies the prosecution case. That the dying declaration is alleged to be concocted and manipulated. In the first information report weapon was lathi, danda and iron rod while in dying declaration gadansa, lathi and danda, bricks and the numbers of the accused were not specified. There was no injury report of gadansa and the same was not mentioned in first information report. In the first information report fire arm was alleged to be used was katta, while in dying declaration rifle has been attributed. In dying declaration the name of Sheetal has not been mentioned. The name of Ram Bahadur’s sons are not mentioned in first information report. The dying declaration is not in question answer form. Type copy of dying declaration being herewith as Annexure No. 11 to this affidavit. That the dying declaration was recorded by the Tasildar on 30.04.2013 at C.H.C., Amethi when the deceased was not in the position to give any statement. That the applicant and other co-accused persons have been falsely implicated only on the ground of suspicion as in the murder of his father Samsher Singh, deceased Ram Akbal was an accused along with others and was convicted under section 302 I.P.C. on 09.11.2000 in S.T. No. 141 of 1998 (State Versus Ram Akbal and others). The deceased filed an appeal being appeal No. 1048 of 2000 and he was on bail. The deceased Shamsher Singh was renowned advocate of District – Pratapgarh. That an absurd story has been cooked up by the prosecution that the person is having the rifle and tamancha will not use lathi, danda and iron rod. The first information report resembling with the autopsy report. The first information report is contradictory with the dying declaration. The statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. is also not corroborating with each other. That following cases are registered against the applicant:- Case crime No. 107 of 1997 under Section 374 I.P.C. and bonded Labour Act, the applicant is on bail case is pending. Case crime No. 122 of 2008 under Section 147, 148, 3223, 504,506 I.P.C., the applicant on bail, case is pending. Case is crime No. 143 of 2008 under Section 3 (1) Gunda Act withdraw of the notice by the then District Magistrate. Case crime No. 148 of 2008 under Section 110 Cr.P.C., the proceeding is dropped. The applicant is on bail and the same is pending. That after 2008 no criminal case is registered against the applicant. That the applicant is innocent. The criminal history shown against the applicant has been explained in the preceding paragraph. There is delay in lodging the first information report. There is contradiction in first information report and alleged dying declaration. The injured/deceased was assaulted by the persons with whom civil dispute was pending, even after losing the case in the Hon'ble Court. He was forcibly having the possession. The deceased was convicted in the murder of the father of the applicant and was on bail by the Hon'ble Court, this was suspicion and the applicant schooling students were implicated. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is falsely implicated by the police persons without any reason and the applicant has not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report. That the applicant in jail since 25/05/2013. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Anjani Kumar Mishra aged about 50 years son of Matapher resident of Village – Lakharahaa, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – High School, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the neighbour of the applicant duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this or rejected by this . That brief facts of the case is that a F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and three other persons on 22.11.2013 by the wife of the deceased namely Rajpati under section 302/506 I.P.C., on the basis of wrong fact and due to malafide intension. Informant stated in the first information report that the applicant and other accused beaten the deceased by hand and foot at 6:30 PM on 22.11.2013. The copy of the first information report is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That after the lodging the first information report police reached to the place of occurrence and prepare the inquest report on very same day. That the investigation officer sends the body of the deceased for the post mortem on 23.11.2013 in District – Pratapgarh at 3.00 PM. The copy of the post mortem report is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That the investigation officer recorded the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. eyewitness namely Rajpati recorded on 24.11.2013. There are many contradictions in the statement of informant and in first information report. The copy of the statement of informant and eyewitness under section 161 Cr.P.C. is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 collectively to this application. That in first information report made general allegations by the informant but in the statement of under section 161 Cr.P.C. she changes her version and specifically assigned the roll of the accused persons. That this is well proved the informant is not present at the place of occurrence. That the investigation officer recorded the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. after the post mortem report. After the perusal of the post mortem report, the investigation officer of the case changed the first information report version and assigned the specifically roll to the applicant. That the investigation officer record only one eyewitness namely Kalawati, not any other eyewitness under section 161 Cr.P.C. The informant stated in his statement some other villagers are seen the whole incident but she not disclosed any name in the statement. That the eyewitness is sister of the deceased and she is interested witness in the case. That the deceased was heavy drinker and patient of asthma; he was murdered by unknown persons any other place and applicant was falsely implicated in the case crime. That the deceased was always create nuisance after the drinking the alcohol. The applicant is neighbour of the deceased and he was always giving Gali to all of neighbours when the applicant tries to stop him, he was always quarrelling with the applicant. That at the time of incident the deceased and his real brother are quarrelling with each other and create lot of nuisance. When the applicant goes to stop both of them but when the applicant reaches on the spot, he has seen the dead body of the deceased. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That there is no any motive to murder of deceased and same was not stated by the prosecution. That no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has no reason to murder the deceased. That the applicant has been surrender before the court below on and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 06.08.2014. The copy of the order dated 06.08.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That the applicant in jail since and has no criminal history. That during investigation, the investigation officer includes the electric and laltain at the time of the incident, in the statement of the informant for the implementation of the applicant in the said case crime. That as per the roster system of the electricity department in the incident area was 07:00 PM onwards at the time of the incident. That the Hon'ble Court enlarged the co-accused of the case crime by order dated 10.01.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 184 (B) of 2014 (Amit Pandey Versus State of Utter Pradesh). The copy of the order dated 10.01.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That the applicant is innocent and due to enmity with informant falsely implicated in the aforesaid case crime. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Kashyap Yadav aged about 22 years son of Shri Brijlal Yadav resident of Village - Mauli, Manau Ka Purwa, Police Station - Kunda, District - Pratapgarh Religion – Hindu, Education– Literate, Occupation – _____________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the brother/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 13.09.2023 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 322 of 2023 under Sections 366-A, 376(3), 506 of I.P.C., 3, 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(i)Da, 3(i)Dha, 3(2)5, 3(2)5A of the S. C. & S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment, 2005) regarding the incident dated 30.08.2023. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 13.09.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in her first information report that he had purchased a mango orchard, where he was living along with his family in a tent. On 30.08.2023, the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was alone in the mango orchard as on 30.08.2023 was the Rakshabandhan festival. The applicant forcefully brought his daughter to old ITI and committed rap with her and after commission, when his daughter became unconscious then he left her outside of the room. When the opposite party No. 2 and others saw that his daughter was in the tent then they after searching found the daughter at old ITI. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the allegations leveled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 30.08.2023 but the first information report was lodged on 13.09.2023 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to the 14 day delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was conducted on 14.09.2023 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned, therein neither any injury was found on her nor any other incriminating findings were mentioned in the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. The radiological age of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has been ascertained as 18 years vide report supplementary medical report dated 03.10.2023. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 along with supplementray medical report is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on 14.09.2023, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded in which he almost repeated the averments made by him in the first information report to falsely implicate the applicant in said case crime. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 14.09.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 14.09.2023 in which she changed the entire story mentioned in the first information report by the opposite party No. 2 and adduced new facts and stated that the applicant sent massage her on her mobile on 30.08.2023 for coming, she denied thereafter the applicant reached at mango orchard and brought her to ITI, where committed rape with her. The daughter of the opposite party No. 2 further stated that she returned to the mango orchard after 15 minutes, where she became unconscious, thereafter her family members reached the mango orchard. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned on 29.09.2023, in which again changed her version of the statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and stated that on 30.08.2023 around 10.30 PM the applicant entered her house and brought her and committed rape with her and she has become unconscious at the gate of the ITI. The daughter of the opposite party No. 2 further stated that she knew the applicant. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the opposite party No. 2 and his daughter regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime goes to the root of the case rendering the prosecution case unworthy of any credit and in the instant case. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet No. 656 of 2020 against the applicant under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 506 of I.P.C., 3, 4(2) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(i)Da, 3(i)Dha, 3(2)5, 3(2)5A of the S. C. & S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment, 2005) against the applicant on 11.10.2023. That the real story of the case is that opposite party No. 2 and the applicant are known to each other. That Rs. 1,20,000/- was given to the opposite party No. 2 as a loan for the purchase of the mango orchard in the year 2022. That the opposite party No. 2 was not returning the money and on the demand of the money given the threat to face consequences of the same. That thereafter the opposite party No. 2 conspire against the applicant and in a well-planned manner falsely implicate the applicant in rape charges with his daughter. That the prosecution story so far concerned to the applicant as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural, and unbelievable for a prudent man. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offense under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 506 of I.P.C., 3, 4(2) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(i)Da, 3(i)Dha, 3(2)5, 3(2)5A of the S. C. & S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment, 2005) is made out against the applicant. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 3424 of 2023 before Special Judge, (POCSO)/ Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 11.01.2024. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case. the applicant has been languishing in jail since 15.09.2023. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 322 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 506 of I.P.C., 3, 4(2) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(i)Da, 3(i)Dha, 3(2)5, 3(2)5A of the S. C. & S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment, 2005) registered at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice. |
I, Mubarak aged about 58 years son of Umraw resident of Village - Janwamau Deeh, Saiyyadayaseenpur, Police Station – Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh, Education– Literate, Occupation – Labour, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to him as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 30.05.2022 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 91 of 2022 under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506, IPC regarding the incident dated 16.05.2022. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 30.05.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in her first information report that on 16.05.2022 the applicant took her minor daughter (hereinafter referred to as ‘victim’). And after three days left victim at the house of the opposite party No. 2 and also abused and given a life threat. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the allegations leveled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 16.05.2022 but the first information report was lodged on 30.05.2022, without giving any explanation with regard to the 14 days delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That on 04.06.2022, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which she changed the version of the first information report and added the several new facts and repeated that the victim was returned to her home after three days i.e. on 19.05.2022. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 04.06.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 06.06.2022 in which she stated that on 16.05.2022 the applicant met with her after calling her at 01.00 hours and stated that he would marry her. Thereafter the victim went with the applicant with her own WILL and resided with the applicant for three days and returned to her home after three days. The victim further stated that the applicant told her that if she told someone, then the victim and her family face consequences. The typed copy of the statement of the victim dated 06.06.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the statements of the victim and opposite party No. 2 are contradictory and the victim admitted that she went with the applicant to solemnize marriage with him. That till recording the statement of the opposite party No. 2, her husband and daughter, no one said that the applicant committed rape with the victim. That the medical examination of the victim was conducted on 06.06.2022 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned, therein neither any injury was found on her nor any other incriminating findings were mentioned in the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. The radiological age of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has been ascertained as 16 to 17 years vide report supplementary medical report dated 29.06.2022. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the victim dated 06.06.2022 along with the supplementary medical report dated 29.06.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That after around more than 24 days, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned on 23.06.2022, in which she changed her statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and the first time said that the applicant committed rape with her. The victim further tried her best to send the applicant behind bars. The typed copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 23.06.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim is unbelievable and beyond the imagination, once the victim did not tell anyone prior to or after lodging the first information report and before & after the recording of the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., that the applicant committed rape with her but suddenly she said that the applicant committed rape. That later on, section 376 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 added to the case crime on 23.06.2022 by the Investigating Officer. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the victim regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime. The prosecution case is unworthy of any credit. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet No. 142 of 2022 against the applicant under 363, 366, 376, 504, 506, IPC, and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 on 16.10.2022. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 due to malafide intentions to get the monetary benefit, which has been given to the rape victims by the state government. That the whole story was cooked by the opposite party No. 2 and their family members on narration of the concerned police against the applicant, which has been explained by the concerned police. That the applicant and opposite party No. 2 belong to the same religion and the victim, who is the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 and the applicant loved each other and they have been chatting over the mobile phone since long back. That when the opposite party No. 2 and her family members came to about the love relationship of the applicant and the victim they become annoyed and threatened the applicant for implicating him in a false case of victim’s rape. That on 16.05.2022, around 01.00 hours, the victim called the applicant and put pressure upon him to bring her as the opposite party No. 2 and others have tortured her otherwise she will commit suicide. That thereafter, the applicant brought the victim from her house to save her from her parents but when the applicant was threatened by the opposite party No. 2 and her family members, thereafter, the applicant and victim returned to their home on 19.05.2022. That thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 and family members stated that when the applicant settled they would solemnize the marriage of the applicant and victim, therefore the applicant went to the Mumbi to earn the money. That later on, on the basis of the legal advice to take monetary benefits, the false information report was lodged against the applicant. That there no any involvement in the said case as alleged in the first information report, the applicant has not committed any offence, the victim is the consenting party and the relation between both is mutual consent. That it is settled law that in every case of rape, the act of sexual intercourse must be forcible and without the consent of the lady. Here in this case, the victim had a sexual relationship with the applicant with her own consent. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself shows that no prima-facie offense under 363, 366, 376, 504, 506, IPC and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant. That against the applicant several false cases have been lodged, which are as under:- Case Crime No. 177 of 2018 lodged under Sections 307, 411, 413, 414, 419, 420 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station - Nawabganj, District - Pratapgarh in which the applicant was granted bail by the court below. Case Crime No. 178 of 2018 lodged under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station - Nawabganj, District - Pratapgarh in which the applicant was granted bail by the court below. Case Crime No. 42 of 2020 lodged under Sections 2/3 Gangster Act registered at Police Station - Nawabganj, District - Pratapgarh in which the applicant was not granted bail. Case Crime No. 115 of 2020 lodged under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station - Nawabganj, District - Pratapgarh in which the applicant was granted bail by the court below. Case Crime No. 148 of 2020 lodged under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station - Nawabganj, District - Pratapgarh in which the applicant was granted bail by the court below. Case Crime No. 91 of 2022 lodged under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504, 506, IPC and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which is the present case. Case Crime No. 175 of 2022 lodged under Sections 174A of I.P.C. registered at Police Station - Nawabganj, District - Pratapgarh in which is related to the present case. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 2490 of 2024 before Special Judge, (POCSO)/ Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 05.09.2024. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That apart from above mentioned cases, there is no criminal history of the applicant and he has been languishing in jail since 16.08.2024. That the court concerned took cognizance against the applicant on 01.12.2022 and there is no chance of concluding the trial according the provisions of Section 35(2) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, by which the learned trial court is bound to conclude the trial within one after taking the cognizance of the offense. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 91 of 2022 under 363, 366, 376, 504, 506, IPC and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice. |
I, Fida Hussain Tahamul Hussain aged about 53 years son of Tahamul Hussain resident of Sangam Nagar, Hindusthan Nagar, S. M. Road, Behind Sangam Nagar, Police Chawki, Wadala East, Antop Hill, Mumbai, Maharastra, Religion – Muslim, Education – Literate, Occupation – Private Job, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/ prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged against the applicant and another on 24.06.2022 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 201 of 2022 under Sections 376-D, 506 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The certified copy of the first information report dated 24.06.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in her first information report that two years before one Sajjad Ahmed son of Samsad Ahmed resident of her Nanihal, gradually made physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. The opposite party No. 2 further alleged that the applicant also raped her many times. The opposite party No. 2 said she was aged about 16 years and had made and sent her video to Sajjad Ahmed under his pressure. The opposite party No. 2 came to know around two months before that the applicant and another accused are married and had children then she stopped talking with them. Thereafter the applicant and another accused made the video viral among relatives and in society and are threatening her. That the alleged incident which was taken place long back but the first information report has been lodged on 24.06.2022 after two years of the alleged incident, without giving any explanation with regard to the delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the informant and her family lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. The opposite party No. 2 shows the incident date two years back to send the applicant behind the bar under sections of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. That on 24.06.2022, the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the concerned police, in which she changed her prosecution story and also tried to develop her prosecution story by adding several additional fasle and incorrect facts. The typed copy of the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 24.06.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the medical of the victim was conducted on 29.06.2022 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned. The radiological age of the victim was ascertained as 20 years vide report supplementary medical report dated 07.07.2022. The photo/tyed copy of the medical report dated 29.06.2022 and supplementary medical report dated 07.07.2022 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has recorded before the concerned court on 05.07.2022, in which she stated that she again changed her story and stated that firstly another accused with her free WILL and later the applicant has relation with her. The opposite party No. 2 firstly denied that there was physical relation between the applicand and opposite party No. and thereafter said the applicant forcefuly raped her. The opposite party No. 2 further stated that the applicant and another accused called her at a nearby river around 10.00 PM and she returned to her home around 11.30 PM. The phototyped copy of the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 05.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the opposite party No. 2 regularly changed her statements given under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. as such her testimony is not trustworthy. That the real story of the case is that the applicant is resident of the nahihal of the opposite party No. 2 and he has no concern with the alleged incident as alleged against him and the applicant & opposite party No. 2 know each other. That one another villager namely Sajjad, who is the friend of the applicant, and make phone calls to the opposite party No. 2 in the month of November, 2020. That the opposite party No. 2 initially avoided the calls of Sajjad thereafter they started to chat and they both have fallen in love long back and they met regularly with each other and they have a physical relation also. That therafter, the opposite party No. 2 lodged the first information report against Sajjad and also named the applicant only being friend of Sajjad while the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged against him. That the O. P. No. 2 has a physical relationship with another accused, which she herself admitted despite a false story cooked up by the concerned police and the O. P. No. 2 so far relates to the applicant for obtaining money from the state government, which is given to the rape victim. That the O. P. No. 2 is well aware that she is major in age but she has lodged the first information report saying therein that she is a minor. That the prosecution story so far concerned to the applicant as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural, and unbelievable for a prudent man. The O. P. No. 2 herself admitted that she had a physical relationship with her own free WILL with another accused of the case crime but the applicant named in case crime being friend of the main accused of the case crime. That evidence of witnesses of fact are full of inter and intra contradictions about the incident and there is a deliberate improvement in the statement of the opposite party No. 2 as to the manner of sexual assault, which can not be relied upon and all the witnesses of fact examined by the prosecution are related to one other and hence they are in the category of related witnesses and as such their testimonies can not be relied upon in absence of evidence of any independent witness. That it is settled law that in every case of rape, the act of sexual intercourse must be forcible and without the consent of the lady. Here in case, the opposite party No. 2 said that another accused was given the promise to marry and under said promise, her consent was obtained by him for sexual intercourse and it is not possible, even to assume, that the opposite party No. 2 has not given her consent for sexual intercourse to another accused and falsely implicate the applicant in said case. That without proper investigation of the case, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet No. 307 of 2022 under Sections 375-D, 506 of I.P.C., 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 on 22.09.2022 against the applicant. That there is no evidence against the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid case crime. That the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. has not collaborated with each other as such the above statement has no legal validity. That in the present case there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the applicant did not commit the offence. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the O. P. No. 2 with malafide intentions. That the opposite party No. 2 has a saving bank account, where her date of birth mentioned as 01.01.2003 i.e. she is major in age, which is duly proven from the medical report dated 07.07.2022. The photocopy of the bank details of the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the trial has been initiated before the learned trial court in which the opposite party No. 2 has been examined as P.W. – 1 on 23.11.2022 and 06.12.2022. The photo/typed copy of the examination of the opposite party No. 2 dated 23.11.2022 & 06.12.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 211 of 2023 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Pratapgarh on 08.05.2023. The free certified copy of the order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the court concerned is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.09.2022 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 201 of 2022 under Sections 375-D, 506 of I.P.C., 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Mandhata, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice. |
I, Shaharookh aged about 25 years son of Ballu resident of Avnaspur Road, Kanoon Goyan, Bacharaun, Dhanaura, District- Bacharaun, District-Amroha, Religion–Muslim, Education– Literate, Occupation – labor, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the brother/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 25.09.2020 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 854 of 2020 under Sections 376, 323, 506 of I.P.C. and 3, 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 regarding the incident dated 05.02.2020. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 25.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in her first information report that she went to the market with her daughter aged about 7 years, meanwhile the applicant molested her another daughter aged about 8 years. The opposite party No. 2 further alleged that the applicant is the stepfather of the victim has bad eyes for her daughter and previously molested her several times. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the allegations leveled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 05.02.2020 but the first information report was lodged on 25.09.2020 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to the more than 7 months delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was conducted on 29.09.2020 around 8 months later at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned, therein neither any injury was found on her nor any other incriminating findings were mentioned in the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. The radiological age of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has been ascertained as 8-10 years vide report supplementary medical report dated 30.09.2020. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 29.09.2020 in which she changed the entire story mentioned in the first information report and adduced new facts, which are unbelievable. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That on 29.09.2020, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded in which several new facts and tried her best to falsely implicate the applicant in the case crime and change the story, which was said by her in the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 29.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned on 12.10.2020, in which again repeated her version of the statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the opposite party No. 2 and his daughter regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime goes to the root of the case rendering the prosecution case unworthy of any credit and in the instant case. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet No. 656 of 2020 against the applicant under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376(2)(Cha) of I.P.C. and 5M, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the applicant on 14.11.2020. That the real story of the case is that opposite party No. 2 is the second wife of the applicant who had already married and had child with her earlier husband. That after the marriage with the applicant, the opposite party No. 2 has bad eyes on the property of the applicant and she always put pressure upon the applicant to transfer some valuable property to her and also demanded Rs. 5 lakhs from him. That when the applicant denied giving money and property to the opposite party No. 2 then she became annoyed and threatened the applicant to face consequences of the same. That thereafter the opposite party No. 2 conspire against the applicant and in well-planned manner falsely implicate the applicant in rape charges with her own step-daughter. That the prosecution story so far concerned to the applicant as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural, and unbelievable for a prudent man. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offense under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376(2)(Cha) of I.P.C. and 5M, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant. That the charges have been framed by the trial court but till yet not appeared before the trial court and lingering the trial. That according to Section 35(2) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the trial must be preferably be completed by the Trial Court within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offense, while in the case of the applicant, the case is pending from November 2020. That there is no chance to conclude the trial of the applicant sooner as the trial has not started yet. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 906 of 2023 before Additional District Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 15.07.2023. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 15.07.2023 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case. the applicant has been languishing in jail since 12.11.2020. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 854 of 2020 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376(2)(Cha) of I.P.C. and 5M, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice. |
I, Shiv Kumar aged about 37 years son of Shri Dashrath resident of Mahesh Ganj Bikara, Derhava, Police Station - Patti, District - Pratapgarh, Education– Literate, Occupation – Labour, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the brother-in-law/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to him as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 12.07.2023 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 268 of 2023 under Sections 363 of I.P.C., 3 regarding the incident dated 07.07.2023. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 12.07.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that his 16-year-old daughter, who is mentally unsound, and was under treatment left his house on 07.07.2023 around 07.30 PM and when she did not return home. The opposite party No. 2 and others have tried their best to find her but she was not found by them. Thereafter the opposite party No. 2 moved an application for lodging the missing report. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the allegations leveled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 07.07.2023 but the first information report was lodged on 12.07.2023 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to the 6 day delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That on the very same day i.e. on 12.07.2023, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he repeated the version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 12.07.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on 04.09.2023 around 2 months later, the opposite party No. 2 moved an application before the concerned Police Station stating therein that his daughter returned home on 03.09.2023. That the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 04.09.2023 in which she changed the entire story mentioned in the first information report by the opposite party No. 2 and adduced new facts and stated that she left her house in the midnight of 07.07.2023 and reached to Pratapgarh station. When she missed her house than she stopped a riksha pullar, who brought her to his house and thereafter brought her to the house of the applicant. She further stated that the applicant raped her and when he went to Delhi on 01.09.2023 thereafter the victim escaped herself and reached her house. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was conducted on 05.09.2023 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned, therein neither any injury was found on her nor any other incriminating findings were mentioned in the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. The radiological age of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has been ascertained as 17 to 18 years vide report supplementary medical report. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 along with the supplementary medical report is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned on 06.09.2023, in which again changed her version of the statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and stated that the applicant, his brother and father along with the Riksha Pullar namely Rakesh Chauhan committed rape with her. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim is unbelievable and beyond the imagination, once the victim did not tell any other name in her statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and later on in the statement of the 161 of Cr.P.C., named all male persons of the applicant’s family. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime. The prosecution case is unworthy of any credit. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet No. 294 of 2020 against the applicant under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(D)(a), 323 of I.P.C. and 5G, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the applicant, his brother, father and another on 25.09.2023. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 due to malafide intentions to get the monetary benefit, which has been given to the rape victims by the state government. That the whole story was cooked by the opposite party No. 2 and their family members on narration of the concerned police against the applicant, his brother and father, which has been explained by the concerned police. That the victim has been residing almost around two months far from her house but never raised any alarm at any point of time and the prosecution story as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural, and unbelievable for a prudent man. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offense under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(D)(a), 323 of I.P.C. and 5G, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 3424 of 2023 before Special Judge, (POCSO)/ Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 12.01.2024. Here it is relevant to mention that the free certified copy of the order dated 12.01.2024 was misplaced by the deponent therefore after obtaining a certified copy, the same is annexed herewith. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case. the applicant has been languishing in jail since 12.09.2023. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 268 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(D)(a), 323 of I.P.C. and 5G, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Patti, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice. |
I, Smt. Kavita aged about 22 years daughter of Shri Sambhu Nath wife of Shri Ravi Yadav resident of Saray Madhai, Deyi Dee Dhaurahara, Police Station - Patti, District - Pratapgarh presently resident of Village – Barchauli, Police Station – Aaspur Deosara, District – Pratapgarh, Police Station - Aaspur Deosara, District - Pratapgarh, Education– Literate, Occupation – Housewife, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the wife/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 30.07.2022 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 206 of 2022 under Sections 354 (Kha), 504, 506, IPC and 7/8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 regarding the incident dated 16.07.2022. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 30.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that on 16.07.2022 in the night of 12.00 AM, went for a nature call back side of his house at that time the applicant molested the victim and recorded a video and forwarded the same. The opposite party No. 2 further stated that the applicant gave life threat to the victim. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the allegations leveled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 16.07.2022 but the first information report was lodged on 30.07.2022, without giving any explanation with regard to the 14 days delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That the statement of the victim was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 02.08.2022 in which she changed the entire story mentioned in the first information report by the opposite party No. 2 and adduced new facts and stated that on 16.07.2022 around 10.00 PM, she was sleeping with her grandmother at that time the applicant and another brought her in the field where the applicant committed rape and another accued was recording video and later on, another accused committed rape with her. The victim further stated that the applicant told her that if she told someone, they would kill her brother. The typed copy of the statement of the victim dated 02.08.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on the very same day i.e. 02.08.2022, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he repeated the version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 02.08.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the statements of the victim and opposite party No. 2 are contradictory, the opposite party No. 2 stated that the applicant was alone and molest her while the victim adduced new facts and name in her statement. That the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was conducted on 04.08.2022 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned, therein neither any injury was found on her nor any other incriminating findings were mentioned in the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. The radiological age of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has been ascertained as 15 to 16 years vide report supplementary medical report dated 05.07.2023. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the victim dated 04.08.2022 along with the supplementary medical report dated 05.07.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That after around more than one & half months, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned on 17.09.2022, in which again repeated her version of the statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.. The typed copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 17.09.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim is unbelievable and beyond the imagination, once the victim did not tell any other name to his brother i.e. opposite party No. 2 prior to lodging the first information report and before the recording of the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and later on in the statement of the 161 of Cr.P.C., named another accused. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the victim regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime. The prosecution case is unworthy of any credit. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet No. 294 of 2020 against the applicant under 354 (Kha), 376-D, 504, 506, IPC, and 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 against the applicant bearing Charge Sheet No. 165 of 2023 on 20.06.2023. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 due to malafide intentions to get the monetary benefit, which has been given to the rape victims by the state government. That the whole story was cooked by the opposite party No. 2 and their family members on narration of the concerned police against the applicant, which has been explained by the concerned police. That the applicant and opposite party No. 2 are residents of the same village and belong to the same caste and the victim, who is the sister of the opposite party No. 2 loved the applicant one-sided, while knowing that the applicant is a married man. That a day, the victim expressed her wish and stated that marry with her, on denial of the applicant the victim become annoyed and threatened the applicant for implicating him in a false case of her rape. That later on, the victim builds pressure upon the applicant to be involved in a physical relationship with her otherwise she will commit suicide and the applicant will face consequences of the same. That thereafter, the applicant had physical relations with the victim and later on, she built pressure upon the applicant to bring her and solemnize the marriage with her. The photograph of the applicant and victim showing their love relationship is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That there no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has not committed any offence, the victim is the consenting party and the relation between both is mutual consent. That it is settled law that in every case of rape, the act of sexual intercourse must be forcible and without the consent of the lady. Here in this case, the victim had a sexual relationship with the applicant with her own consent. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offense under 354 (Kha), 376-D, 504, 506, IPC and 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 is made out against the applicant. That the co-accused of the case crime namely Brijesh Kumar Yadav moved a bail application before this Hon'ble High Court bearing Crl. Misc. Case No. 10263 (B) of 2023 (Brijesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and others), which has been allowed by this Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 22.03.2024. The photocopy of the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 177 of 2024 before Special Judge, (POCSO)/ Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 07.03.2024. Here it is relevant to mention that the free certified copy of the order dated 07.03.2024 was misplaced by the deponent therefore after obtaining a certified copy, the same is annexed herewith. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case. the applicant has been languishing in jail since 22.12.2023. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 206 of 2022 under 354 (Kha), 376-D, 504, 506, IPC and 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 registered at Police Station – Aaspur Deosara, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice. |
I, Munna Lal aged about 40 years son of Shri Ram Aasre resident of Baramau, Mahraunda, District – Prayagraj, Education– Literate, Occupation – Labour, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father /pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to him as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant and 4 others including his parents on 13.10.2023 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 153 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B of IPC regarding the incident dated 28.09.2023. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 13.10.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that on 28.09.2023 in the night of 10.00 PM, went for a nature call in front of her house at that time the applicant and other accused kidnapped the victim and also stated the applicant committed rape with the victim. The opposite party No. 2 further stated that the victim was recovered in the night of 29.09.2023 around 03.00 AM. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the allegations levelled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 28.09.2023 but the first information report was lodged on 13.10.2023, without giving any explanation with regard to the 15 days delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That the aforesaid first information report has been lodged by the opposite party No. 2 in retaliation of the first information report lodged by the father of the applicant for the murder of applicant’s mother against the father-in-law and two brother-in-laws of the opposite party No. 2 on 23.05.2018 bering Case Crime No. 417 of 2018 under Section 304 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Soranv, District – Prayagraj, in which during the investigation Section 316 of I.P.C.. The photocopy of the first information report dated 23.05.2018 lodged by the father of the applicant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on 14.10.2023, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which she almost repeated the version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 14.10.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the opposite party No. 2 herself stated in the first information report and her statement that the victim has been recovered on 29.10.2023 around 03.00 AM i.e. after 5 hours of missing of the victim and she also stated that opposite party No. 2 tried her best to find the victim and raided several places in said 5 hours. That thereafter on 20.10.2023, the concerned police prepared a false and fabricated recovery memo regarding the recovery of the victim of the case crime, whereas the opposite party No. 2 stated in her first information report and statement, the victim was recovered on 29.09.2023 at 03.00 AM. The typed copy of the recovery memo dated 20.10.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That on the very same day, the statement of the victim was recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which she changed the entire prosecution story and stated that her parents were beaten her as such he run away from her house on 11.10.2023 and stayed at her friend house. When she was going to her Nani’s house, she was caught by the concerned police. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. dated 20.10.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the medical examination of the victim was conducted on 21.10.2023 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned, therein neither any injury was found on her nor was any other incriminating findings mentioned in the medical examination of the victim. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the victim dated 21.10.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That on 21.10.2023, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned, in which she changed the prosecution story and stated that the applicant and another kidnapped her and raped her and after one day of the alleged date of kidnapping, she was recovered by her parents with the help of concerned police. The typed copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 21.10.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim under Section 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. are not collobrate with the medical of the victim in any manner That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the victim regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime. The prosecution case is unworthy of any credit. That here it is relevant to mention that there are lot of contradiction so far relates to the date, time and place of incident as well as the recovery of the victim. That the statement of the victim is unbelievable and beyond the imagination, once the victim did not tell any date, time and place of the alleged incident and also she stated that she was recovered after second day of the alleged incident while the concerned police prepared recovery memo regarding recovery of the victim on 20.10.2023. That on 21.10.2023, the investigating officer of the case crime on the basis of the statement of the victim added Sections 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in the case crime and also altered the Section 376 of I.P.C. to 376-DA of I.P.C.. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet No. 144 of 2023 against the applicant under Sections 363, 366, 376-DA, 120-B of IPC and 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the applicant and others on 20.11.2023 on which the cognizance has been taken by the court concerned on 27.11.2023. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 due to malafide intentions to take revenge from the applicant’s family. That the opposite party No. 2 and applicant are residents of the same village and on 06.05.2018 the father-in-law and two brother-in-laws of the opposite party No. 2 have murdered the mother of the applicant. That the father of the applicant lodged a first information report lodged against the father-in-law and two brother-in-law of the opposite party No. 2 on 23.05.2018 bering Case Crime No. 417 of 2018 under Section 304 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Soranv, District – Prayagraj, in which during the investigation Section 316 of I.P.C.. That in said case, the charge sheet was submitted after proper investigation on 19.07.2018 against the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the opposite party No. 2. That the charges were framed in said case crime against the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the opposite party No. 2 and trial is going on, in which there is full chance that the father-in-law and brother-in-laws of the opposite party No. 2 would be convicted. That the opposite party No. 2 and her family members several times, threatened the father of the applicant to hostile in said case otherwise he face consequences of the same. That when the father of the applicant denied to given statement in the favour of the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the opposite party No. 2, thereafter whole story was cooked by the opposite party No. 2 and her family members on narration of the concerned police against the applicant and his family members, which has been explained by the concerned police. That there no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged against him by the opposite party No. 2. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offense under Sections 120-B, 363, 366, 376-DA of IPC and 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1003 of 2024 before Special Judge, (POCSO)/ Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 24.04.2024. Here it is relevant to mention that the free certified copy of the order dated 24.04.2024 was misplaced by the deponent therefore after obtaining a certified copy, the same is annexed herewith. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case, the applicant has been languishing in jail since 06.01.2024. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 153 of 2023 under Sections 120-B, 363, 366, 376-DA of IPC and 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Delhupur, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice. |
I, Gulakhetab aged about 53 years son of Akbaluddin resident of Village - Jafarpur, Post - Kandhai, Hanumangaj, Kehi Madhupur, Police Station - Kandhai, District - Pratapgarh, Religion – Muslim, Education – Literate, Occupation – Self employeed, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the uncle/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged against the unknown person on 28.05.2021 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 184 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 354-A, 509 of I.P.C. and 67 of Information Technology Act. The certified copy of the first information report dated 28.05.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that when he was in Rakhaha Bazar, two constables met with him, in which one of them shown the objectionable viral video of a girl. The opposite party No. 2 inquire in the area regarding the said incident then he came to know that the girl shown in the video is local. As the viral video was related to the crime against women hence the first information report was lodged by him. That on 28.05.2021, the statement of O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the concerned police, in which he repeated the version of his first information report. The typed copy of the statement of O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 28.05.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on 29.05.2021, the unknown girl was identified by the Investigation Officer and thereafter her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the opposite party No. 3 revealed the name of the Sahil and another along with two unknown persons. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 3 dated 29.05.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the opposite party No. 3 stated that she is aged about 18 years and had a love relationship with another accused namely Shyad. On 10.05.2021 around 10.00 PM, when her lover called her then she went to orchard to meet him. At that place, her lover, Sahil, and two unknown persons were present and forcefully raped her. That the opposite party No. 3 only named Sahil, she did not given any other detail about Sahil but without any proper investigation, the Investigating Officer framed the applicant in said case crime due to extraneous reasons. However, there are several persons residing in Village – Jafrapur with the name of Sahil. That the opposite party No. 3 stated in her statement that the Sahil is resident of village of co-accused namely Shyad while the applicant and co-accused are resident of different village. That the opposite party No. 3 refused to get examined medically after she was produced before the medical officer of the concerned hospital on 29.05.2021 without any reason, which was duly supported by her guardian. The denial from the medical by the opposite party No. 3, itself creates doubt upon the prosecution's story. The photo/typed copy of the medical report dated 29.05.2021 and the radiology report dated 31.05.2021 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That according to the radiologist, the radiological age of the opposite party No. 3 has been ascertained as about 18 years old. That the statement of the O. P. No. 3 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has recorded before the concerned court on 01.06.2021, in which she stated that she changed her story and stated that on 10.05.2021 around 10.00 PM she went on the road for a nature call, where 4 four persons including applicant were present and brought her on the bike and raped her and also record the video and also given threat that if she told anyone regarding the said incident then they kill her family member. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 3 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 01.06.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the opposite party No. 3 regularly changed her statements given under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. as such her testimony is not trustworthy. That the Investigating Officer of the case crime, obtained a certificate from the Headmaster of the school of the opposite party No. 3 and according to him, the date of birth of the opposite party No. 3 is 12.07.2003. The typed copy of the relevant part of the CD mentioning the certificate of the Headmaster is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That when the Investigation Officer found nothing against the applicant thereafter he recorded the statement of the mother & father of the opposite party No. 3 on 28.07.2021 after about 2 and half months later under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which they both also tried to falsely implicate the applicant in said crime along with other accused. The typed copy of the statement of the mother & father of the opposite party No. 3 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the real story of the case is that the has no concern with the alleged incident as alleged against him and the applicant did not know the opposite party No. 3. That another accused of the case crime was the lover of the opposite party No. 3 as she herself admitted and they have physical relations with each other. That another accused was always telling about her love story with the applicant and other friends and stated that the opposite party No. 3 is know about each of his friends as he told everything to her, whenever he met with her. That despite the above fact, family of the applicant has enmity with one Mahipat, who have killed the uncle of the applicant on 29.11.2015 as such the deponent has lodged a first information report bearing Case Crime No. 352 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 34 of IPC at Police Station – Kandhai, District – Pratapgarh and trial is pending before the court concerned. That later, Mahipat and his compainons have also fired upon the father of the applicant therefore again the deponent lodged another first information report bearing Case Crime No. 99 of 2016 under Sections 307, 506 of IPC at Police Station – Kandhai, District – Pratapgarh. That Mahipat is politically connected persons and has money & muscular power, when he came to know that applicant is friend of another accused then he conspire against the applicant and his family, the applicant has been falsely implicated in said case crime. Here it is relevant to mention that the opposite party No. 3 and her family members residing under the protection of Mahipat as such they are dancing on his tune. That the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident and not in the viral video despite that the opposite party No. 3 named the applicant in her statement under Section 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C., being the friend of her lover. while the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged against him. That the opposite party No. 3 has a physical relationship with another accused, which she herself admitted despite a false story cooked up by the concerned police, and the opposite party No. 3 so far relates to the applicant for obtaining money from the state government, which is given to the rape opposite party No. 3, which is Rs. 8 Lakhs in case of gang rape. That O. P. No. 2 is well aware that the opposite party No. 3 is major in age but she has lodged the first information report saying therein that she is a minor. That the prosecution story so far concerned to the applicant as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural, and unbelievable for a prudent man. The opposite party No. 3 herself admitted that she had a physical relationship of her own free WILL with another accused of the case crime but the applicant named in the case crime being the friend of the main accused of the case crime. That evidence of witnesses of fact are full of inter and intra contradictions about the incident and there is a deliberate improvement in the statement of the opposite party No. 3 as to the manner of sexual assault, which can not be relied upon and all the witnesses of fact examined by the prosecution are related to one other and hence they are in the category of related witnesses and as such their testimonies can not be relied upon in absence of evidence of any independent witness. That it is settled law that in every case of rape, the act of sexual intercourse must be forcible and without the consent of the lady. Here in case, the opposite party No. 3 said that she had a love relationship with another accused, her consent was obtained by him for sexual intercourse and it is not possible, even to assume, that the opposite party No. 3 has not given her consent for sexual intercourse to another accused and falsely implicate the applicant in said case. That without proper investigation of the case, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet No. 31B of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, 354-A, 376-D of I.P.C., 67 of Information and Technology Act, 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)5, 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha of S. C. & S. T. Act on 23.08.2022 against the applicant and others. That there is no evidence against the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid case crime. That the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. has not collaborated with each other as such the above statement has no legal validity. That in the present case there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the applicant did not commit the offence. That the alleged viral video has not been shown to the opposite party No. 3 by the Investigating Officer at any point of time during the investigation and the identification parade was also not conducted to indentify the applicant but due to extraneous, the Investigating Officer, framed the applicant in said case crime. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the O. P. No. 2 and parents of the opposite party No. 3 with malafide intentions. That the fact that the opposite party No. 3 had refused her medical examination after leveling very serious allegations of gang rape against the applicant and others not giving any explanation for the same, indicates the possibility of false implication of the applicant. No justification or logical reason is coming forth from the opposite party No. 3 regarding the refusal of her medical examination. The refusal of the opposite party No. 3 to get her medical examination conducted and give samples indicates the possibility of false prosecution of the applicant and throws doubt on the veracity of her allegations against the applicant. That where the evidence of the opposite party No. 3 was found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material and there being refusal by the opposite party No. 3 to undergo a medical examination, then no reliance can be placed upon her evidence. The onus is always on the opposite party No. 3 to prove and the applicant is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. That the case of the opposite party No. 3 is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defence. In case the evidence is read in totality and the story projected by the opposite party No. 3 is found to be improbable, the prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected. That the opposite party No. 3 knew the accused prior to the incident through his lover i.e. another accused. If evidence of opposite party No. 3 is read and considered in the totality of circumstances along with other evidence on record, in which offence is alleged to have been committed, her deposition does not inspire confidence. That the opposite party No. 3 denied to have examined medically without reason, which creates doubt in the prosecution story thus the absence of any medical report/examination of the informant would go in favour of the applicant and he is entitled to get the benefit of the doubt. That the Investigating Officer, himself watched the alleged viral and after watching the same and thereafter the pendrive has become part and parcel of the investigation. The typed copy of the relevant part of the CD of the case crime is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That Section 67 of the Information Technology Act has not attract against the applicant and it is further relevant to mention that the alleged viral video, on the basis of which, the opposite party No. 2 has lodged the first information report has not filed along with the forensic report stating that the video has not tempered. That the provisions of Section 67 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has also not followed by the Investigating Officer at time of submission of the alleged viral video in pen drive. For ready reference of this Hon'ble High Court Section 67 of Indian Evidence Act, 1972 reproduced under:- 67A Proof as to [electronic signature]. —Except in the case of a secure [electronic signature], if the [electronic signature] of any subscriber is alleged to have been affixed to an electronic record the fact that such [electronic signature] is the [electronic signature] of the subscriber must be proved.] That the co-accused of the case crime namely Inzaman filed bail application bearing Crl. Misc. Case No. 3886 of 2023 before this Hon'ble High Court and he has been granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 31.07.2023. The photocopy of the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by this Hon'ble High Court being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1425 of 2023 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Pratapgarh on 08.08.2023. The free certified copy of the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the court concerned is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.07.2022 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 184 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, 354-A, 376-D of I.P.C., 67 of Information and Technology Act, 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)5, 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha of S. C. & S. T. Act registered at Police Station – Kandhai, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice. |
I, Gulakhetab aged about 53 years son of Akbaluddin resident of Village - Jafarpur, Post - Kandhai, Hanumangaj, Kehi Madhupur, Police Station - Kandhai, District - Pratapgarh, Religion – Muslim, Education – Literate, Occupation – ___________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the __________/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged against the unknown person on 28.05.2021 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 184 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 354-A, 509 of I.P.C. and 67 of Information Technology Act. The certified copy of the first information report dated 28.05.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that when he was in Rakhaha Bazar, two constables met with him, in which one of them shown the objectionable viral video of a girl. The opposite party No. 2 inquire in the area regarding the said incident then he came to know that the girl shown in the video is local. As the viral video was related to the crime against women hence the first information report was lodged by him. That on 28.05.2021, the statement of O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the concerned police, in which he repeated the version of his first information report. The typed copy of the statement of O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 28.05.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on 29.05.2021, the unknown girl was identified by the Investigation Officer and thereafter her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she revealed the name of the applicant and another along with two unknown persons. The typed copy of the statement of the victim dated 29.05.2021 is being ........... That the victim stated that she is aged about 18 years and had a love relationship with another accused namely Shyad. On 10.05.2021 around 10.00 PM, when her lover called her then she went to orchard to meet him. At that place, her lover, the applicant, and two unknown persons were present and forcefully raped her. That the victim refused to get examined medically after she was produced before the medical officer of the concerned hospital on 29.05.2021 without any reason, which was duly supported by her guardian. The denial from the medical by the victim, itself creates doubt upon the prosecution's story. The photo/typed copy of the medical report dated 29.05.2021 and the radiology report dated 31.05.2021 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That according to the radiologist, the radiological age of the victim has been ascertained as about 18 years old. That the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has recorded before the concerned court on 01.06.2021, in which she stated that she changed her story and stated that on 10.05.2021 around 10.00 PM she went on the road for a nature call, where 4 four persons including applicant were present and brought her on the bike and raped her and also record the video and also given threat that if she told anyone regarding the said incident then they kill her family member. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 01.06.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the victim regularly changed her statements given under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. as such her testimony is not trustworthy. That when the Investigation Officer found nothing against the applicant thereafter he recorded the statement of the mother & father of the victim on 28.07.2021 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which they both also tried to falsely implicate the applicant in said crime along with other accused. The typed copy of the statement of the mother & father of the victim is being ............... That the real story of the case is that the has no concern with the alleged incident as alleged against him and the applicant did not know the victim. That another accused of the case crime was the lover of the victim as she herself admitted and they have physical relations with each other. That another accused was always telling about her love story with the applicant and other friends and stated that the victim is know about each of his friends as he told everything to her, whenever he met with her. That here it is relevant to mention that the victim belongs to Hindu Community while her lover i.e. another accused belongs to the Mulsim community therefore when family members came to know about their relationship then they threatened another accused. However, they met regularly and a video of intimate time has been recorded and viral by the ................... That the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident and not in the viral video despite that the victim named the applicant in her statement under Section 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C., being the friend of her lover. while the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged against him. That the victim has a physical relationship with another accused, which she herself admitted despite a false story cooked up by the concerned police, and the victim so far relates to the applicant for obtaining money from the state government, which is given to the rape victim, which is Rs. 8 Lakhs in case of gang rape. That O. P. No. 2 is well aware that the victim is major in age but she has lodged the first information report saying therein that she is a minor. That the prosecution story so far concerned to the applicant as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural, and unbelievable for a prudent man. The victim herself admitted that she had a physical relationship of her own free WILL with another accused of the case crime but the applicant named in the case crime being the friend of the main accused of the case crime. That evidence of witnesses of fact are full of inter and intra contradictions about the incident and there is a deliberate improvement in the statement of the victim as to the manner of sexual assault, which can not be relied upon and all the witnesses of fact examined by the prosecution are related to one other and hence they are in the category of related witnesses and as such their testimonies can not be relied upon in absence of evidence of any independent witness. That it is settled law that in every case of rape, the act of sexual intercourse must be forcible and without the consent of the lady. Here in case, the victim said that she had a love relationship with another accused, her consent was obtained by him for sexual intercourse and it is not possible, even to assume, that the victim has not given her consent for sexual intercourse to another accused and falsely implicate the applicant in said case. That without proper investigation of the case, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet No. 31B of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, 354-A, 376-D of I.P.C., 67 of Information and Technology Act, 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)5, 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha of S. C. & S. T. Act on 23.08.2022 against the applicant and others. That there is no evidence against the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid case crime. That the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. has not collaborated with each other as such the above statement has no legal validity. That in the present case there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the applicant did not commit the offence. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the O. P. No. 2 with malafide intentions. That the fact that the victim had refused her medical examination after leveling very serious allegations of gang rape against the applicant and others not giving any explanation for the same, indicates the possibility of false implication of the applicant. No justification or logical reason is coming forth from the victim regarding the refusal of her medical examination. The refusal of the victim to get her medical examination conducted and give samples indicates the possibility of false prosecution of the applicant and throws doubt on the veracity of her allegations against the applicant. That where the evidence of the victim was found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material and there being refusal by the victim to undergo a medical examination, then no reliance can be placed upon her evidence. The onus is always on the victim to prove and the applicant is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. That the case of the victim is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defence. In case the evidence is read in totality and the story projected by the victim is found to be improbable, the prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected. That the victim knew the accused prior to the incident through his lover i.e. another accused. If evidence of victim is read and considered in the totality of circumstances along with other evidence on record, in which offence is alleged to have been committed, her deposition does not inspire confidence. That the victim denied to have examined medically without reason, which creates doubt in the prosecution story thus the absence of any medical report/examination of the informant would go in favour of the applicant and he is entitled to get the benefit of the doubt. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1425 of 2023 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Pratapgarh on 08.08.2023. The free certified copy of the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the court concerned is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.07.2022 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 184 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, 354-A, 376-D of I.P.C., 67 of Information and Technology Act, 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)5, 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha of S. C. & S. T. Act registered at Police Station – Kandhai, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice. |
I, Shaharookh aged about 25 years son of Ballu resident of Avnaspur Road, Kanoon Goyan, Bacharaun, Dhanaura, District - Bacharaun, District - Amroha, Religion – Muslim, Education – Literate, Occupation – ___________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the brother/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the second bail application. First bail application No. 1632 of (B) 2023 has been rejected by Hon’ble Shri Brij Raj Singh “J” on 25.05.2023. No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. The photocopy of the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That this second bail application is being moved before this Hon'ble High Court on some new facts and grounds, which have been left to be brought before this Hon'ble High Court for proper adjudication of the bail application. That brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 20.09.2020 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 412 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C. regarding the incident dated 08.08.2020. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 20.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that his daughter went on 08.08.2020 anywhere and now returned. She stated that the applicant abducted her. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the allegations leveled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 08.08.2020 but the first information report was lodged on 20.09.2020 at 14.45 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to the 42-day delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 and his family lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That on 22.09.2020, the statement of O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the concerned police, in which he repeated the version of his first information report. The typed copy of the statement of O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 22.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was conducted on 21.09.2020 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned, therein neither any injury was found on her nor any other incriminating findings were mentioned in the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. The radiological age of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has been ascertained as 15-17 years vide report supplementary medical report dated 22.09.2020. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That on 30.12.2020, the further statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded in which several new facts and tried his best to falsely implicate the applicant in the case crime. The typed copy of the further statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 30.12.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which she adduced new facts, which are unbelievable. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That after about 4 months of lodging the first information report, the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned, in which again new story has been developed and told by the victim. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the opposite party No. 2 and his daughter regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime goes to the root of the case rendering the prosecution case unworthy of any credit and in the instant case. That the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 regularly changed her statements given under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. as such her testimony is not trustworthy. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet against the applicant under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C., 3, 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)5Ka, 3(2)v of S. C. & S. T. Act. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offense under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C., 3, 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)5Ka, 3(2)v of S. C. & S. T. Act is made out against the applicant. That the trial against the applicant is initiated and is going on. The daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has been examined by the trial court as P.W. - 1 and her chief and cross-examination have been recorded by the trial court on 07.07.2023, in which a lot of contradictions appeared between her statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C.. During the cross-examination, the daughter of the opposite party No. 2/ P.W. - 1 stated that nothing had been done by the applicant with her ever. The photo/typed copy of the chief and cross-examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2/ P.W. - 1 recorded by the trial court on 07.07.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That this Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 25.05.2023, when the first bail application of the applicant was rejected, directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial within six months. The copy of the aforesaid order has been served before the trial court but after passing more than six months, the trial has not concluded yet. That there is no chance to conclude the trial of the applicant sooner as to date only the opposite party No. 2 & his daughter have been examined as P.W. - 1 & 2 and yet several witnesses are in queue for their examination as such in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during the pendency of his trial. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1526 of 2022 before Additional District Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 16.11.2022. The certified copy of the order dated 16.11.2020 has been annexed with the first bail application No. 1632 of (B) 2022. The photocopy of the bail rejection order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offense. That the applicant has been languishing in jail since 24.04.2022 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 412 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C., 3, 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)5Ka, 3(2)v of S. C. & S. T. Act registered at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice. |
I, Shiv Kumar aged about 37 years son of Shri Dashrath resident of Mahesh Ganj Bikara, Derhava, Police Station - Patti, District - Pratapgarh Religion – Hindu, Education– Literate, Occupation – _____________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the _________/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to him as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 12.07.2023 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 268 of 2023 under Sections 363 of I.P.C., 3 regarding the incident dated 07.07.2023. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 12.07.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that his 16-year-old daughter, who is mentally unsound, and was under treatment left his house on 07.07.2023 around 07.30 PM and when she did not return home. The opposite party No. 2 and others have tried their best to find her but she was not found by them. Thereafter the opposite party No. 2 moved an application for lodging the missing report. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the allegations leveled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 07.07.2023 but the first information report was lodged on 12.07.2023 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to the 6 days delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That on the very same day i.e. on 12.07.2023, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he repeated the version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 12.07.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on 04.09.2023 around 2 months later, the opposite party No. 2 moved an application before the concerned Police Station stating therein that his daughter returned home on 03.09.2023. That the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 04.09.2023 in which she changed the entire story mentioned in the first information report by the opposite party No. 2 and adduced new facts and stated that she left her house in the midnight of 07.07.2023 and reached to Pratapgarh station. When she missed her house than she stopped a riksha pullar, who brought her to his house and thereafter brought her to the house of Pappu Chauhan. She further stated that Pappu Chauhan raped her and when he went to Delhi on 01.09.2023 thereafter the victim escaped herself and reached her house. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That here it is relevant to mention that the name of the applicant did not come to light in the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. That the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was conducted on 05.09.2023 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned, therein neither any injury was found on her nor any other incriminating findings were mentioned in the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. The radiological age of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has been ascertained as 17 to 18 years vide report supplementary medical report. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 along with the supplementary medical report is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned on 06.09.2023, in which again changed her version of the statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and stated that the applicant, his brother and father along with the Riksha Pullar namely Rakesh Chauhan committed rape with her. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim is unbelievable and beyond the imagination, once the victim did not tell any other name in her statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and later on in the statement of the 161 of Cr.P.C., named all male persons of the applicant’s family. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime. The prosecution case is unworthy of any credit. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet No. 294 of 2020 against the applicant under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(D)(a), 323 of I.P.C. and 5G, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the applicant, his brother, father and another on 25.09.2023. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 due to malafide intentions to get the monetary benefit, which has been given to the rape victims by the state government. That the whole story was cooked by the opposite party No. 2 and their family members on narration of the concerned police against the applicant, his brother and father, which has been explained by the concerned police. That the victim has been residing almost around two months far from her house but never raised any alarm at any point of time and prosecution story as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural, and unbelievable for a prudent man. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offense under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(D)(a), 323 of I.P.C. and 5G, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 3424 of 2023 before Special Judge, (POCSO)/ Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 12.01.2024. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case. the applicant has been languishing in jail since 12.09.2023. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 268 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(D)(a), 323 of I.P.C. and 5G, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Patti, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice. |
I, Smt. Chanar Devi aged about 50 years wife of Late Ram Fer resident of Village – Gadiyani, Manraunda, District – Prayagraj (earlier Allahabad), Education– Illiterate, Occupation – Housewiefe, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the mother/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such dhe is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 04.11.2023 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 200 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C., regarding the incident dated 01.11.2023. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 04.11.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in her first information report that on 01.11.2023, her 19-year-old daughter, abaducted by the applicant and another accused. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 01.11.2023 but the first information report was lodged on 04.11.2023 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to the 4 days delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That on the very same day i.e. on 04.11.2023, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which she almost repeated the version of her first information report with improved facts to falsely implicate the applicant. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 04.11.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 04.09.2023 in which she stated that she is aged about 19 years and also she herself went with the applicant and another to marry with the applicant. The typed copy of the statement of the victim is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That here it is relevant to mention that the age of the victim was mentioned as 19 years in the first information report and statements of the opposite party No. 2 & victim. That the medical examination of the victim was conducted on 06.11.2023 by the doctor concerned, therein neither any injury was found on her body nor any other incriminating findings were mentioned in the medical examination of the vicitm. The radiological age of the victim has been ascertained as 18 years vide report supplementary medical report. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the victim along with the supplementary medical report is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned on 08.11.2023, in which she changed her version of the statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and stated that she is aged about 17 years and the applicant, another kidnapped her on 01.11.2023 and committed rape with her. The typed copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim is unbelievable and beyond the imagination, once the victim admitted the relationship with the applicant in her statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and later on in the statement of the 164 of Cr.P.C., she changed her statement under the pressure of her family members. That the victim was recovered by the concerned police on 04.11.2023, which is mentioned in the Sr. No. 8 of CD No. 1 dated 04.11.2023 and her custody was given to the opposite party No. 2 however, in the statement given under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., stated that she herself called her mother i.e. opposite party No. 2 when she was thrown by the applicants. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the victim regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime. The prosecution case is unworthy of any credit. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet No. 294 of 2020 against the applicant under Sections 363, 366, 376(D), 342, 506 of I.P.C. and 5G, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the applicant, his brother, father and another on 08.12.2023. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant was working in the village of the opposite party No. 2, and met with the victim and they fallen in love and decided to marry. That the victim is belongs to another religion as such after coming to know regarding the relationship of the applicant and victim, her family threatened the applicant to face consiquences of the same. That on 01.11.2023, the victim left her house and went with the applicant to solemnized the marriage and residing with the applicant. That on 04.11.2023, the concerned police recovered the victim from Mauaima, Prayagraj, when the victim was with the applicant. That when the victim returned to her home thereafter the information report has been lodged against the applicant and another. That the whole story was cooked by the opposite party No. 2 and their family members on narration of the concerned police against the applicant, which has been explained by the concerned police. That the victim has been residing almost around four days with her own WILL house but never raised any alarm at any point of time and prosecution story as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural, and unbelievable for a prudent man. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offense under Sections 363, 366, 376(D), 342, 506 of I.P.C. and 5G, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 3178 of 2023 before Additional District Judge/ Special Judge, (POCSO), Pratapgarh and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 07.02.2023. A error was occured in the order and after moving the correction application, the free certified copy of the bail order was returned back to the court below for correction and correction order passed on 22.02.2024 and no free copy issued to the applicant. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the court below along with the correction order dated 22.02.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case. the applicant has been languishing in jail since 15.11.2023. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 200 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366, 376(D), 342, 506 of I.P.C. and 5G, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Dilippur, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice. |
I, Raj Kumar aged about 57 years son of Shri Chedi Lal resident of Sukulpur, Dahilamau, District - Pratapgarh, District - Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – ___________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father/ pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That brief fact of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the unknown person on 09.05.2020 at 06.45 hours by Laxman Prasad Pandey son of Shri Krishna Kumar Pandey resident of Village - Barachha, Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 of IPC at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar District – Pratapgarh regarding incident dated 08.05.2020. The photo/typed copy of the first information report dated 09.05.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 09.05.2020 by the informant alleged therein a that he has paid an advance Rs. 3 Lakh to Sarvesh Tiwari for purchasing a plot in Marut Nagar but after some time he got knowledge that the plots in question are not a pure land and it is part of Sai river. That it is further alleged that the informant demanded his advance money from Sarvesh but he was avoiding to return the same. On 08.05.2020 at 11.00 AM Sarvesh Tiwari asked the informant that he come on the plot at Marut Nagar and take the advance. It is further stated that the informant along with his brother Ram Prasad Pandey and many other persons went to meet Sarvesh Tiwari at his plot. It is further alleged that when he reached at plot many accused persons as shown n first information report were present there including the applicant. That it is also alleged that when he asked Sarvesh Tiwari to give his money Aditya Singh @ Major and Monu Tiwari the co-accused, Raj Kumar Maurya the applicant, and Amit Raja exhorted that kill them and finish the story and in that order, Aditya Singh and Mom Tiwari caught the deceased brother of the informant and snatched his pistol and Sarvesh Tiwari, Aanad Tiwari, and Anjani Shukla and others have started firing on informant and his brother Ram Prasad and accused also chasing the person with the informant for killing them. In the meantime, his brother Ram Prasad fell down and he bring the district hospital from where he was referred to Allahabad where he died. Since he was doing the last rites of the deceased therefore the first information report could not be lodged on the same day. That it is important to mention here that the alleged incident took place on 08.05.2020 whereas the first information report was lodged on 09.05.2020 at 16.30 hours and the explanation given cannot be accepted because more than 24 hours have passed and despite the knowledge and other persons of family of the deceased first information report was not lodged nor any application was given in that regard, which shows that the first information report was delay only to create a false story to falsely implicate the applicant and other persons. That Investigation Officer recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 09.05.2020 in which he stated the same thing as in the first information report and the role was assigned to the applicant that he exhorted the coaccused to kill the deceased. The photocopy of the statement of the informant dated 09.05.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That Investigation Officer has also recorded the statement of some passers and other residents of Mohalla under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and they all told that firing was done by both parties and both parties have sustained injuries. None of them says that only one party has done firing. The photocopy of the statements of some independent witnesses of the case crime is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That, Investigation Officer has also recorded the statement of many police officers under Sections 161 of Cr.P.C., who stated that they went to the place of the incident and got knowledge that both parties have done firing and both sides had sustained injuries and names also disclosed by them in which name of the applicant is also mentioned. The photocopies of the statements of some police officers dated 11.05.2020 are being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the Investigating Officer has also recorded the statement of one injured Subhash Saini under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., who told that he also went with the informant to the place of incident and when they reached the place of the incident Sarvesh Tiwari asked them to sit, and talk was going on about the return of money but after some time hot talk started and then the incident was caused. The photocopy of the statement of Subhas Saini dated 14.06.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That Investigation Officer has also prepared a parcha in which it is mentioned that firing was done by both sides and both sides have sustained injuries. The photocopy of the parcha dated 10.05.2020 prepared at 10.15 AM and 15.01 hours is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the Investigating Officer has recorded the further statement of the informant on 20.07.2020 in which he assigned the specific role of firing upon the deceased to co-accused Anjani Shukla and said that Anjani Shukla has fired on his brother. The photocopy of the further statement of the informant dated 20.07.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That inquest report of the deceased was prepared on 09.05.2020 at 23.00 hours without mentioning about any crime number. No one told about the accused persons despite the family of the deceased are witnesses of the inquest report. The photocopy of the inquest report of the deceased dated 08.05.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That after inquest of the body of the deceased was sent for postmortem and the same was conducted on 09.05.2020 at 01.20 AM in midnight in which three injuries of a firearm were found. The photo/typed copy of the post-mortem report of the deceased dated 09.05.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That the Investigation Officer did not try to find out as to whose bullet hit the deceased because the firing was going on from both sides but Investigation Officer investigated only one side story. None of the firearms were sent to the ballistic expert and even the Investigation Officer should have to collect both sides firearms all of them should have to send for expert opinion because the first information report was lodged by the main accused Sarvesh Tiwari as well and both sides have received injuries of the firearm. That it is also important to mention here that Subhas Saini, Saurabh Tiwari, Laxman Prasad Pandey and the deceased were examined and they also received injuries but none of them was serious. The photo/typed copies of the injury reports of Subhas Saini, Saurav Tiwari, Laxman Prasad are being annexed as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That the entire story is false and concocted as alleged against the applicant. The real fact is that Sarvesh Tiwari and the deceased and the informant were partners and they were doing business of plotting in district Pratapgarh. That in the month of January 2020 some dispute occurred between them about partnership and commission thereafter Ram Pandey the deceased and the informant got annoyed with Sarvesh Tiwari The informant and deceased tried to take possession of the land of Marut Nagar whereas the same was taken by Sarvesh Tiwari from the actual owner of these lands. Since Ram Prasad and Laxman Prasad could not get the land they started to take over the land. Informant and deceased are muscle men and they always keep 12 to 15 men for threatening the persons. That the applicant was trying to purchase a plot in Marut Nagar therefore he paid Rs. 25000 advance to Sarvesh Tiwari and on the date of the incident he was called for measurement of the plot and to get boundaries for identifying the plots. When the applicant reached the office of Sarvesh Tiwari on 08.05.2020 the deceased and the informant were already present there along with about 15 persons and three or four vehicles. That when the applicant reached there he found that some conversation was going on between the deceased and Sarvesh Tiwari and suddenly deceased and Laxman Prasad fetch revolvers from their pocket and started firing on Sarvesh Tiwari who sit on the land and saved himself. The Guard of Sarvesh Tiwari suddenly took position and he started firing to save Sarvesh Tiwari. Thereafter all 1215 persons who came with the informant also started firing and Sarvesh Tiwari and his two three men ran away and the informant and his brother Ram Prasad chased them. Both sides have fired in which both sides have received injuries. The applicant also somehow escaped by hiding himself. That Sarvesh Tiwari has also lodged the first information report against the deceased, informant, and other persons under Section 147, 148, 149, 307 of I.P.C. bearing Case Crime No. .407 of 2020 registered at Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Pratapgarh in which investigation is pending. An application for lodging the first information report was given on the date of the incident i.e. 08.05.2020 but the same was not lodged by police due to pressure of the informant but lodged only on 12.05.2020. The photocopy of the first information report dated 12.05.2020 lodged by Sarvesh Tiwari is being annexed as Annexure No. 11 to this affidavit. That the applicant was not present there deliberately but he went only to get the plot as per agreement. That only role assigned to the applicant is that he exhorted the other co-accused but till date, no other evidence was shown against the applicant. He was arrested on 24.08.2022 and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. That here it is relevant to mention that a firearm has been recovered from another coaccused of the case crime on 27.12.2020 and against him another first information report was lodged under relevant acts and sections. The photocopy of the recovery memo dated 27.12.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 12 to this affidavit. That it is also important to mention here that co-accused Monu Tiwari @ Rahul Tiwari who was assigned the role of exhortation and snatching the pistol from the deceased has been granted bail by this Hon'ble court in Bail application No. 9559 of 2020 vide order dated 17.12.2020. Here it is relevant to mention that other co-accused of the case crime namely Raj Kumar Maurya and Ravi Singh are also enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble High Court. The applicant has the identical role of exhortation as alleged in the first information report and statement of the informant. The photocopies of the bail orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court are being annexed as Annexure No. 13 to this affidavit. That the first information report was delayed only to add some more names and get the detail of the other persons therefore the first information report was lodged on 09.05.2020. That the statements of the informant and Subhas Saini are different in the manner of the incident. As per Subhas Saini, the incident took place when the passion of conversation was increased and firing took place so the incident took place suddenly hence offence under section 120B of I.P.C. was not made out. That the applicant has no enmity with the informant but his name was mentioned under the impression that he was also there along with Sarvesh Tiwari whereas the applicant was not with Sarvesh Tiwari. That actually no evidence was collected against the applicant by police and his name was falsely implicated. That if the story is believed to be true it is the case of the sudden fight and both sides have received injury. The place of the incident if the office of Sarvesh Tiwari where the informant and his brother wanted to take possession of land forcibly and failing they opened fire on Sarvesh Tiwari in saving Sarvesh Tiwari some fire was done by the accused side also and both sides received injury. Police have not tried to find out who firearm hit the deceased. That it is also important to mention here that the plot on which the incident took place belongs to Sarvesh Tiwari and deceased and his brother came there to take over the possession of three four-wheeler vehicles and some other two-wheelers but firing was opened by both sides therefore deceased also received injuries but who fired on him is not clear. It reflects in the further statement of the informant and Subhas Saini who tell that they went with many persons. That on the basis of the statement of the informant alone and without proper Investigation Officer has included the name of the applicant. It is also important to mention here that no independent witness was produced to prove the incident. That the statements of witnesses are not reliable because all have stated different versions and manner of the incident but not no one says he saw the incident. No one assigned the role of assault to the applicant in fact the incident did not happen in the manner as given in the first information report. That even from perusing the entire case diary no evidence on record may show the involvement of the applicant in the present case. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 188, 307, 302, 120-B of I.P.C. at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police and informant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That the applicant moved bail application bearing Bail Application No. 1576 of 2023 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 13.07.2023 without considering the grounds in his bail application. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 14 to this affidavit. That the applicant in jail since 24.08.2022 without the commission of any offense. That the applicant has no previous criminal history. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 406 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 307, 302, 120-B of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh during the pendency of the case. |
I, Neeraj Verma aged about 21 years son Shri Harikesh Verma resident of 503, Kalideen Ka Purwa, Sagra Sundarpur, P.O. - Sagra, Police Station – Leelapur, District - Pratapgarh, Qualification – ______________, Occupation – ________________, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the brother/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is first bail application on behalf of the applicant before the Hon'ble Court and not other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant have falsely been implicated in case crime No. 361 of 2023 under Sections 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh on 29.12.2023 at 00.56 hours regarding the incident dated 28.12.2023. The first information report has lodged by Shri Vivek Kumar Mishra, Sub Inspector, Police Station - Pratapgarh, District – Pratapgarh. It is further relevant to mention that the aforesaid first information report is lodged against the applicant and another. The certified/ type copy of the first information report dated 29.12.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That the informant stated in his first information report that on 28.12.2023 the informant along with his team on patrolling of the area. At that moment an informer of the police gave information that a white Bolero carrying the ganja, That the informant and his team arrested the applicant and another by using the manpower and recovered the 25 KG ganja from 6 packets. On questioning the applicant accepted that he had transported the said ganja from the state of Bihar. That it is relevant to mention here that the contents of the first information report are beyond the truth as well as imagination. The story of the informant does not collaborate with the facts and circumstances of the alleged case crime. That the applicant is a common man of society and has no concerns with Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance and the concerned police arrested the applicant from anther place but without any reason and falsely implicated in said case crime for showing his good work. That there is no concern with recovered Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance in any manner with the applicant, which is shown in the recovery memo as the applicant is not involved in such type act in any manner and the police concerned falsely implicated in said case crime with ulterior motive. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that no one saw the occurrence and there is no any independent eye witness of the said recovery and it is a case of forge, fabricated, and false and there is no any evidence against the applicant. That the statement of the informant has been recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 29.12.2023, in which he almost repeated the version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 29.12.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant’s father was ill and on 29.12.2023 he was going to market and at that time the informant stopped him and questioned him without any reason. That the applicant opposed the informant and also asked to show a valid reason for his questioning due to which the informant was annoyed for said reason and threatened to teach a lesson to the applicant, for which the applicant regretted lifetime. That thereafter after few hours the first information report was lodged against the applicant while he was not concerned any type of the act as mentioned in the first information report. The informant for the purpose of getting the reward from the state government, falsely implicates the applicant in said case through the co-accused. That it is most relevant to mention here that the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged by the informant in his first information report dated 29.12.2023. That the applicant has no concern with the recovered smack as alleged by the informant and also the averments of the informant totally baseless and the same are not reliable in manner. That the informant has no any independent witnesses of the alleged recovery because of the applicant has not committed any offence. That the informant has not complied with the provisions of Section 50 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 as at the time of arrest of the applicant there was no any Gazette Officer, according to Section 42 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 as such entire raid conducted is null and void. That the sample of the alleged recovered ganja was sent for chemical analysis on 12.02.2024 after around one and half months in one packet i.e. the concerned police has not sent the sample of the alleged ganja separately from all six packets. That till date the concerned police have not produced any sufficient evidence against the applicant to prove the involvement of the applicant is a case crime. That till date there is no forensic report (chemical report) of the recovered substance has been received by the informant to establish their story that the applicant is involved in the business of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Sections 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is made out against the applicant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet against the applicant and another on 01.03.2024 bearing Charge Sheet No. 25 of 2024 under 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 That the applicant has no criminal history ever except this false case, which has been lodged by the informant due to an ulterior motive. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is in jail since 29.12.2023 without committing any offense. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That the applicant had applied for bail application bearing number 16 of 2024 but the same has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C., Pratapgarh on insufficient grounds vide order dated 13.02.2024. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in relation to case crime No. 361 of 2023 under Sections 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, during the pendency of the case. |
I, Dinesh Kumar Singh aged about 52 years son of Late Vijay Pal Singh resident of 715/605, Sabji Mandi, Karnalganj, District - Allahabad, Religion – Hindu, Education – LL.B., Occupation – Advocacy and the photograph of the deponent is affixed on the affidavit and his ID proof is enclosed with the affidavit, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the brother of the applicant duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. That this is the second bail application, first bail application No. 6834 of 2013 was rejected by Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II) “J” on 04.04.2014. That on 30.04.2013 about 06.30 Hours the informant Shri Ram Mishra lodged a first information report against 05 persons including the applicant bearing Case Crime No. 192 of 2013 under Section section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307/34, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. And Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act in Police Station – Sangrampur, District – Amethi. The photo and typed copy of the first information report dated 30.04.2013 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the alleged accused as mentioned in the first information report, the applicant and other accused persons of the above case crime, armed with the iron rod, Lathi & Danda came at the door of the informant, where the father of the informant sitting in courtyard, all the accused persons caught hold and dragged him up to the tree by assaulting mercilessly. The mother and brother-in-law of the informant namely Girija Shankar with the help of 108 brought to the injured at Community Health Centre, Amethi from where he was referred to Lucknow where he is being treated and there is least possibility of his survival. That the injured was hospitalized at Mayo Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd., Gomti Nagar, Lucknow on 30.04.2013 at 12.30 PM and was expired on 19.05.2013 at 06.40 PM. The police of Gomti Nagar was informed for conducting the inquest through G.D. No. 44 at 07.20 PM. Photocopy of the letter dated 19.05.2013 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That the inquest was conducted on 20.05.2013 at 09.05 PM at Mayo Medical Centre, Police Station – Gomti Nagar, Lucknow in presence of the informant and chance eye witness Girija Shankar as per information, death occurred due to sustaining the grievous injuries during mar-peet. Photocopy of the inquest report is being filed herewith annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That the doctor conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased on 20.05.2013 at 3.30 PM The death is due to coma as result of anti-mortem head injury. The doctor has noted four injuries on the person of deceased, first is on the right side heads 3cm above the right ear, second injury is on the frond of right forearm 7.00 cm above right wrist joint, third injury is stated on the left forearm 9 cm above left wrist join, fourth injury is on right ankle joint. Photocopy of the autopsy report is being annexed herewith annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That it is admitted that the informant is not eye witness of the occurrence. His statement under sec. 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 01.05.2013 and stated therein he was remained in private service at Delhi after hearing the news he came at the village. The statement of Girija Shankar Pandey resident of Padari, Gauriganj, District – Amethi stated therein the deceased was dragged by the applicant and others and was allegedly assaulted by Lathi, danda and iron rod. That thereafter the investigating officer recorded the statement of Smt. Rajpati wife of deceased who stated in her statement that the applicant and co-accused Jitndra Singh have assaulted with Iron rod and Satyam and Ram Pratap assaulted by lathi and danda. The co-accused Sheetla Prasad caught hold of the deceased in Osara and dragged him at the place of occurrence. Type copies of the statements of the witnesses are being annexed herewith collectively as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That in the meantime the injured/deceased was being treated in Mayo Hospital, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and took his last breath on 19.05.2013. The case summary was prepared by Doctor Siddharth Singh who is hospital administrator. The Neurosurgeon doctor Tarun Pandey has opined that the patient was referred for the head injury but there is no evidence of head injury. C.T. brain is normal. The group of doctors six in numbers have expressed their opinion that the patient progressed well in post-operative period. The patient shifted to room on 07.05.2013 developed breathlessness (Penumonitis) on 08.05.2013 and was again shifted to I.C.U. expired on 19.05.2013. Dr. S. S. Gupta (M.D.) Chest was looking after the patient for respiratory problem. He was Tracheotomised by anti-surgeon and was seen by me on 14.05.2013. The patient was also looked after by the plastic surgeon. The report of doctor who conducted post mortem is contrary with the report of the doctor who treated the patient from 01.05.2013 to 19.05.2013. Photo copy of the of the case summary given by the doctor Siddharth Singh Hospital in Administration dated 01.05.2013 is being herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That according to the report given by the doctor Tarun Pandey (M.S., M.C.H., Neurosurgen) deceased was referred to him but no evidence of head injury was found in the C.T. Scan report. That this fact has deliberately been concealed by the investigating officer of this case with some oblique motive and for this reason he has not taken the C.T. Scan plates on the record of the investigation of the case. That investigating officer took up investigation on 23.06.2013 again recorded the statement of the informant Shri Ram Mishra. He has stated that there was dispute of land, the accused persons armed with lathi, danda, iron rod surrounded his father. This incident was being witnesed by his brother-in-law and mother inside the house from the gap of the gates. The similar statement of Shri Rajpati and Girija Shankar Pandey without slight change. The investigating officer again recorded statement just to twist the story after seeing the post mortem. The investigating officer recorded the statement of doctor Unday Pratap Singh on 23.07.2013 who has stated that he was posted at C.H.C., Amethi and on 30.04.2013 at 9.00 AM examined injured Ram Akbal who was brought by 108 mobile vehicle, a that moment Naib Tahsildar Ajeet Singh also came there and recorded the dying declaration. It is to be noted that doctor Uday Pratap Singh has not given fitness certificate and he is referring that the condition of the patient was serious, the general conditions of the patient was very poor as mentioned in the injury report, in such circumstances, it is evident that the injured was not in position to make his statement. The dying declaration was manipulated and concocted under the political influence. Photo copy of the statement of Dr. Uday Pratap Singh is being filed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That the investigation officer has made recovery of two pieces of brick and one piece of blood stained wooden danda, on 02.05.2013. Photo copy of the recovery memo is being herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this affidavit. That the informant is not an eyewitness Girija Shankar Pandey is the chance witness and brother-in-law of the informant is highly unreliable and a chance witness. The statement of informant is to the effect that the incident was seen in side of the house is also belies the prosecution case. That the dying declaration is alleged to be concocted and manipulated. In the first information report weapon was lathi, danda and iron rod while in dying declaration gadansa, lathi and danda, bricks and the numbers of the accused were not specified. There was no injury report of gadansa and the same was not mentioned in first information report. In the first information report fire arm was alleged to be used was katta, while in dying declaration rifle has been attributed. In dying declaration the name of Sheetal has not been mentioned. The name of Ram Bahadur’s sons are not mentioned in first information report. The dying declaration is not in question answer form. Type copy of dying declaration is being herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. That the alleged dying declaration was recorded by the Tasildar on 30.04.2013 at C.H.C., Amethi when the deceased was not in the position to give any statement. That the eye-witness Girija Shankar Pandey of the case, during trial in his crass examination dated 07.04.2015 stated that the applicant was not present at the incident place and also stated he had not beaten the deceased and as alleged in the first information report. Photo and type of the cross examination of the eye-witness Girija Shankar Pandey dated 07.04.2015 is being herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That the applicant and other co-accused persons have been falsely implicated only on the ground of suspicion as in the murder of his father Samsher Singh, deceased Ram Akbal was an accused along with others and was convicted under section 302 I.P.C. on 09.11.2000 in S.T. No. 141 of 1998 (State Versus Ram Akbal and others). The deceased filed an appeal being appeal No. 1048 of 2000 and he was on bail. The deceased Shamsher Singh was renowned advocate of District – Pratapgarh. That an absurd story has been cooked up by the prosecution that the person is having the rifle and tamancha will not use lathi, danda and iron rod. The first information report resembling with the autopsy report. The first information report is contradictory with the dying declaration. The statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. is also not corroborating with each other. That following cases are registered against the applicant:- Case crime No. 130 of 1984 under Section 393, 506 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, the applicant is acquitted in this case. Case Crime No. 73 of 1985 under section 436 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, the applicant is acquitted in this case. Case Crime No. 177 of 1988, under section 147, 148, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, in this case final report submitted by the police. Case Crime No. 183 of 1992, under sections 4/10 Forest Act, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, the applicant is acquitted in this case. Case Crime No. 37 of 1991 under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, the applicant is acquitted in this case. Case Crime No. 224 of 1996 under section 352, 506 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, the applicant is acquitted in this case. Case Crime No. 159 of 1992 under section 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, this case is lodged as N.C.R.. Case Crime No. 15 of 1993 under section 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, this case is lodged as N.C.R.. Case Crime No. 2 of 1989 under section 307, 336, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, in this case final report submitted by the police. Case Crime No. 216 of 1993, under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, the applicant is acquitted in this case. Case Crime No. 170 of 1993 under section 110G Cr.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, proceedings dropped. Case Crime No. 89 of 2004 under section 3(1), U.P. Goonda Act, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, the applicant is acquitted in this case. Case Crime No. 100 of 2007 under section 374 I.P.C. and 4/16 Bonded Labour Act, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, in this case the applicant is on bail and trial is pending. Case Crime No. 76 of 2008, under section 506 I.P.C. Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, this case is lodged as N.C.R.. Case Crime No. 122 of 2007 under section 3(1), U.P. Goonda Act, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, the applicant is acquitted in this case. Case Crime No. 147 of 2008 under section 3(1), U.P. Goonda Act, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, the applicant is acquitted in this case. Case Crime No. 304 of 2008 under section 307, 504, 506, I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, in this case arrest stay has been granted by this Hon'ble Court, no charge sheet filed till date. Case Crime No. 122 of 2008 under section 147, 148, 323, 435, 506 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, in this case the applicant is on bail and trial is pending. Moreover in this case mother of the applicant lodged the cross case against the complainants. Case Crime No. 100 of 2010, under section 110G Cr.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, proceedings dropped. Case Crime No. 140 of 2008, under section 110G Cr.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, proceedings dropped. Case Crime No. 107A of 2013 under section 148, 148, 323, 325, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, in this case the applicant is on bail and trial is pending. Case Crime No. 718 of 2003 under section 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station – Sangrampur, District – Amethi, in this case the applicant is on bail and trial is pending. Case Crime No. 567 of 2012 under section 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangrampur, District – Amethi, the applicant have no knowledge about this case till date. Case Crime No. 192 of 2013 under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 34, 302 I.P.C. and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station – Sangrampur, District – Amethi, this is present case. That the applicant is innocent. The criminal history shown against the applicant has been explained in the preceding paragraph. There is delay in lodging the first information report. There is contradiction in first information report and alleged dying declaration. The injured/deceased was assaulted by the persons with whom civil dispute was pending, even after loosing the case in the Hon'ble Court. He was forcibly having the possession. The deceased was convicted in the murder of the brother of the applicant and was on bail by the Hon'ble Court, this was suspicion and the applicant schooling students were implicated. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is falsely implicated by the police persons without any reason and the applicant has not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report. That the applicant in jail since 25/05/2013. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Bharat Bhuwal Jaiswal aged about 32 years son of Shri Jokhu Lal Jaiswal, resident of Village – Balapur, Police Station – Antu, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Graduate, Occupation – Business, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the son of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and her photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the applicant and 3 other persons on 14.07.2017 by informant namely Shri Station House Officer, Police Station – Antu namely Shubh Narain with regard to sale & mixing of illegal liquor and under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 741, 272, 273 I.P.C., 60, 63 U.P. Excise Act & 7 Criminal Law Amendment, 1986 at Police Station – Antu, District – Pratapgarh. The photocopy of the first information report dated 14.07.2017 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That according the first information report the informant stated that the after getting information with regard to manufacturing of the illegal liquor by his reliable sources and he with other police personnel’s raided the alleged place, where huge amount of mixed liquor was recovered along with server brands of rapper and bottles. That after concluding the raid, the recovery memo has been prepared by the concerned police on 14.07.2017. That the statement of the informant was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 16.07.2017, in which he repeated his first information report version with whole words i.e. the statement of the informant is copy of the first information report dated 14.07.2017. The typed copy of the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That the several other witnesses were recorded their statement on 16.07.2017 and no anyone told the name of the applicant in connection to the said case crime. The photocopies of the statements of the witnesses are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the real fact of the case is that; the applicant is old age person, who has not in position to commit any offense as alleged against him. That one another accused namely Bheemsen alias Raju Singh, who is named in first information report, is mastermind of the said business of illegal liquor and between the applicant and Raju Singh is long enmity due to which he has told the name of the applicant to the concerned police during the raid on 14.07.2017. That with collusion of Bheemsen alias Raju Singh and concerned police personnel’s the name of the applicant has been included by the informant. That the applicant was arrested by the concerned police from his house but showing their good work, in arresting memo mentioned that the applicant has been arrested nearby his house. The typed copy of the parcha No. 4 of the case dairy dated 31.07.2017 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated and has no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has not committed any offence. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1220 of 2017 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 06.09.2017. The copy of the order dated 06.09.2017 passed by court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That the applicant in jail since 31.07.2017 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That the applicant is about 70 year old year person, and having old age problems. The photocopy of the Aadhar Card of the applicant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this application. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Ram Baksh Singh aged about 60 years son of Shri Ramsharan, Village – Kalapur, Kaithola, Police Station – Lalganj, di – Pratapgarh, Education– Illiterate, Occupation – , do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father /pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to him as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant and 2 others including his parents on 31.03.2024 by Ramesh Kumar son of Late Ram Kumar Jaiswal, resident of Raniganj Kaithola Bazar, Gram Sabha – Kaushilyapur, Police Station – Lalganj, District – Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘informant’) bearing Case Crime No. 95 of 2024 under Sections 386, 384, 323, 427, 506 of IPC regarding the incident dated 30.03.2024. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 31.03.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report informant stated in his first information report that the informant is running a shop and on 30.03.2024 at 07.00 PM, applicant and two other accused having Katta in their hand came to his shop and demanded Rs. 5,000/- as extortion money. When the informant denied then the accused have beaten him thereafter he paid Rs. 5,000/-. The informant further alleged that the applicant threaten him to pay extortion at any cost. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the informant and the allegations levelled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 30.03.2024 around 07.00 PM but the first information report was lodged on 31.03.2024, without giving any explanation with regard to delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the informant lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That the medical of the alleged injured was conducted at C.H.C., Lalganj, Pratapgarh on 30.03.2024 in which the injuries shown as simple in nature. The photo/typed copy of the injury report dated 30.03.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on 31.03.2024, the statement of the informant was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he almost repeated the version of the first information report with improved prosecution story to send the applicant behind the bar. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 31.03.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the concerned Investigating Officer recorded the some stataments of the alleged eye-witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which they supported the prosecution story, while the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged against the applicant. The typed copies of the statements of the alleged eyewitness are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That on 31.03.2024, the applicant has been arrested from his house but for showing his good work, the Investigating Officer prepared false and fabricated recovery cum arresting memo, in which mentioned recovery of Rs. 3,000/- from the applicant. The photo/typed copy of the recovery memo dated 31.03.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet No. 91 of 2023 against the applicant under Sections 386, 384, 323, 427, 506 of IPC against the applicant and others on 23.04.2024. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the informant due to malafide intentions to take revenge from the applicant’s family. That the informant running a shop and on 30.03.2024, the applicant went to his shop, where a dispute has been arisen between the applicant and informant thus the informant threatened the applicant to face consequences of the same. That thereafter the informant was fought with another person, who beaten him and his family thereafter whole story was cooked by the informant and his family members on narration of the concerned police against the applicant and others, which has been explained by the concerned police. That there no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged against him by the informant. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offense under Sections 386, 384, 323, 427, 506 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That the co-accused of the case crime namely Awadhesh Singh moved bail application before this Hon’ble High Court bearing Crl. Misc. Case No. 6728 (B) of 2024, which has been allowed by this Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 24.06.2024. The photocopy of the order dated 24.06.2024 passed by this Hon’ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the case of the applicant is similar to the co-accused of the case crime and it is fit case for granting the bail to the applicant on the basis of the paritry of the co-accused of the case crime. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1478 of 2024 before Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 04.07.2024 without considering the facts of the case. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That apart from the above criminal case, against the applicant another case was lodged bering Case Crime No. 567 of 2017 under Section 60 of Excise Act at Police Station – Lalganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant is on bail. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid mentioned false cases, That the applicant has been languishing in jail since 31.03.2024 without committing any offense. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 95 of 2024 under Sections 386, 384, 323, 427, 506 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Lalganj, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice. |
I, Ritesh Kumar Yadav aged about 22 years son of Shri Rati Ram Yadav Resident of Village – Asaitha, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Business, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to doing pairavi and files the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the applicant and 2 other persons on 01.06.2017 by informant namely Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, Inspector Field Unit, Allahabad bearing Case Crime No. 238 of 2017 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 741, 272, 273 I.P.C., 60, 63 U.P. Excise Act at Police Station – Lalganj, District – Pratapgarh on false, incorrect and baseless grounds. The photocopy of the first information report dated 01.06.2017 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That fact of the first information report dated 01.06.2017 is in nutshell; the informant along with other police companions were searching the criminals and illegal liquor smugglers and they reached Sagra Sundar Pal within the jurisdiction of the Police Station – Lalganj, District – Pratapgarh. That meanwhile one of police informer informed them that at Khajuri turn, two Bolero and one Pickup vehicles are standing and some persons are also there nearby the aforesaid vehicles with illegal liquor. On this information the raiding party reached Khajuri turn and saw that two Bolero and one Pickup vehicles there and after seeing the police personnel’s the persons standing nearby the vehicles tried to escape but three persons including the applicant were arrested by the raiding party at about 03:15 AM on said date i.e. 01.06.2017. That it has been further alleged in the first information report that from the possession of the applicant one country made pistol 315 bore and there live cartages of 315 bore, 10 boxes of illegal liquor total 450 bottles of 200ML in all boxes, 500 empty bottles without cap of 200ML, 200 pages rappers total 9898 rappers, 9500 bottles caps and 7000 cap washers kept in two bags and also have 30,000.00 cash was recovered from him. As per first information report dated 01.06.2017, the applicant was driving the Bolero vehicle No. UP 72 W 4410. That from the possession of the co-accused Madan Lal Verma, the raiding party found one country made pistol 315 bore and two live cartages 315 bore, Rs. 14,000.00 cash, 6 boxes of illegal liquor total 270 bottles of 200ML labelled as Dabang Desi Sharab Masaledar, 400 empty bottles without cap of 200ML, 10700 holograms in three bundles, one packet of chemical for making colour and 6 bundles tape. That the raiding party from the 3rd accused, who was driving the Pickup vehicle No. UP 44 T 9075 recovered the 8300 empty bottles without cap, one plastic tank of 500 litres which was filled about 400 litres of illegal liquor which was dripping from the tap of the tank and two empty gallons of the 50 litres. That it is further stated that above recovery so far concerned with the applicant was false, incorrect and baseless and on basis the first information report was lodged against the applicant and others, in the Police Station – Lalganj, District – Pratapgarh. That the versions of the first information report dated 01.06.2017 and same is depends upon the concocted story as such nothing has been recovered from the applicant as alleged against him. Here it relevant to mention here that the applicant was neither driver of the alleged vehicle nor knowing the driving of the four vehicle. That the real story of the case is that so far concerned to the applicant is that; the applicant has no concerned with the said alleged incident. On 31.05.2017, at marital house of sister of the applicant was a function (Bhandara) at Jalesharganj, Pratapgarh, in which he was present. At that place cousin brother of the applicant namely Shiv Nath Yadav, was also there, who is the owner of the Bolero vehicle No. UP 72 W 4410. That after taking dinner (Bhandara) the Shiv Nath Yadav was also come to house of the applicant for night stay. The applicant was unaware about raid, which was conducting by the raiding party at alleged place. At 3.00AM of 01.06.2017 the police of concerned Police Station was come to house of the applicant and without saying any word, arrested him but the informant showing in his first information report that the applicant was arrested at alleged incident place when he was sit on driving seat of the Bolero vehicle No. UP 72 W 4410. The photo/typed copy of the arresting memo is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That after concluding the raid, the recovery memo has been prepared by the concerned police on 01.06.2017. That so far concerned to the recovery of the Rs. 30,000.00 from the applicant, it is relevant to mention here that the said money was also taken by the concerned police from the house of the applicant, when he was arrested from his house. The said money was withdrawn by his daughter namely Ranjna Yadav on 18.05.2017 on request of the applicant as same was to be given to his sister in her function but on 30.05.2017, his sister denied for taking the said money as there was no need. The photocopy of the bank statement of the daughter of the applicant is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the manner in which the arrest and the recovery has been shown from the applicant is highly improbable against the human nature as he was arrested from his house, which is against the fact and circumstances of the case. That the applicant has been falsely implicated in the said case crime by the concerned Police Station police as the several cases have been lodged against the applicant. That the cases lodged against the applicant, details & status of the same are as under : Case Crime No. 218 of 2000 under Sections 18/20 N.D.P.S. Act, in which the applicant has been acquitted by the A.D.J, Pratapgarh on 07.07.2006. Case Crime No. 219 of 2000 under Sections 60 Excise Act, which is still pending before the court concerned. Case Crime No. 42 of 2003 under Sections 41, 411 I.P.C., which is still pending before the court concerned. Case Crime No. 40 of 2003 under Sections 60 Excise Act, which is still pending before the court concerned. Case Crime No. 46 of 2003 under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act, which is still pending before the court concerned. Case Crime No. 58 of 2003 under Sections 392 I.P.C.. This case was ended at stage of investigation. Case Crime No. 234 of 2007 under Sections 2/3 Gunda Act. Case Crime No. 502 of 2009 under Sections 272 I.P.C. and 60 Excise Act, which is still pending before the court concerned. Case Crime No. 89 of 2010 under Sections 110G Cr.P.C.. Case Crime No. 238 of 2017 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 741, 272, 273 I.P.C., 60, 63 U.P. Excise Act, which is still pending before the court concerned. Case Crime No. 239 of 2017 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act, which is still pending before the court concerned and he is on bail. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated and has no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has not committed any offence. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1358 of 2017 before Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 15.09.2017. The copy of the order dated 15.09.2017 passed by court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That the co-accused of the case crime 238 of 2017, Mandan Lal Verma moved a bail application No. 5937 of 2017 before this Hon'ble Court and he has been released on bail vide order dated 24.08.2017 passed by this Hon'ble Court. Another accused namely Akbar Ali moved bail application No. 7062 of 2017 and he has been also released on bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 28.08.2017. That the applicant in jail since 01.06.2017 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant with regard to case crime No. 238 of 2017. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Naveen Saroj aged about 28 years son of Shri Kailsh Saroj resident of 95, Tina, District - Pratapgarh, Education – Literate, Occupation – _____________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the ___________/paikor of applicant and duly authorized by the applicants to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The photo verification slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association, of the deponent is affixed on the affidavit and his ID proof is enclosed with the affidavit. That the applicant filed the abovementioned bail application for granting bail in Case Crime No. 75 of 2023 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 308, 354-Kha, 323, 504, 506. 325 I.P.C. registered at Police Station - Leelapur, District -Pratapgarh. That this Hon'ble Court has considered the bail application of the applicant and granted the bail, which was moved by the applicants, on 16.05.2024. That due to advertently due to typographical mistake word “under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 308, 354-Kha, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.” typed in place of “under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 308, 354-Kha, 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C.”, in the second line of the second paragraph, in the order dated 16.05.2024. The photocopy of the order dated 16.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That it is further submitted that there was no any error in the bail application, which was moved by the applicant. That the Hon'ble Court may pleased to allow the correction application to correct the order dated 16.05.2024 by replacing the word “under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 308, 354-Kha, 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C.” in place of “under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 308, 354-Kha, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.”, in the second line of second paragraph of the aforesaid order, in the interest of justice. |
I, Jeet Lal Patel aged about 74 years son of Shri Matadeen resident of Village – Swaroop Pur, Katata, Police Station – Jethwara, District -Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is father/pairokar of the Appellant and duly authorized for doing pairvi on behalf of the appellant in the above-noted case on his behalf and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the second bail application on behalf of the appellant before this Hon'ble High Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. The bail application was rejected by Hon’ble Shri Karunesh Singh Pawar “J” on 27.10.2023. The photocopy of the orders dated 27.10.2023 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That this is the second bail application is being moved before this Hon'ble High Court on some new facts and grounds, which have been left to be brought before this Hon'ble High Court for proper adjudication of the bail application. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That a first information report was lodged by the Shri Rambabu Patel son of Shri Sahdev Patel resident of Village – Pooranpur, Police Station – Holagarh, District – Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) against the Appellant on 26.02.2018 bearing Case Crime No. 91 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station – Jethwara, District – Pratapgarh. That story of the prosecution as per the first information report is in a nutshell is that the informant solemnized the marriage of his daughter namely Reshma (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) with the appellant in year 2014 and the appellant was residing in a hut with the deceased separately from his parent. The informant further alleged the appellant tortured the deceased for dowry and on 25.02.2018 he murdered the deceased and himself informed regarding the death of the deceased. When the informant reached to the house of the appellant then he found several injuries on the body of the deceased and he presumed that the appellant murdered the deceased, then the informant lodged said first information report on a presumption basis. That after the improper investigation, the concerned police submitted a charge sheet under Sections 498A, 304B of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the Appellant. That thereafter on 23.05.2018, the charges were framed against the Appellant, and in which the appellant pleaded not guilty. That after the denial of the commission of the offense by the appellant the trial was initiated and was registered as Sessions Trial No. 198 of 2018 (State Versus Ashok Kumar Patel). That total 7 prosecution witnesses have been produced before the trial court against the appellant while only two witnesses have been produced before him as defense witnesses. That the statement of the PW-1 was recorded on 17.01.2019 in which he repeated his version of the first information report but could not tell how the appellant murdered the deceased, he only gave his statement on the basis of the presumption but when he was cross-examined by the defense on 08.04.2019 he failed to support his prosecution story. That the P.W. 2 & 3 have also in their chief examination supported their statements given before the concerned police but when they have been cross-examined they also failed to prove their prosecution story before the learned trial court. That thereafter the P.W. 1 to 3 have to be declared hostile by the learned trial court but in contrary to the catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned trial court has not declared them hostile and used their chief examination against the appellant. That the informant/PW-1, in his first information report dated 26.02.2018 stated that, the information about the murder of his daughter was given by the informant, which is not believable and this fact has been ignored by the learned trial court and the learned trial court relied upon the examination of the PW-1 to PW-3. That no any eyewitnesses of the alleged incident and the PW-1 to PW-3 were not eyewitnesses they were only interested witnesses and gave their statements on the basis of the presumption before the learned trial court and the learned trial court considered the same. That the statements of PW-1 to PW-3 do not support the prosecution story as their statements have lot of contradictions, but the same has been ignored by the learned trial court. That all witnesses of the case crime gave contradictory statements to each other, which shows that the applicant is falsely implicated in the case crime. That neither the applicant has a motive nor has any motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question with which the applicant has no concern in any manner but a false and fabricated story by the concerned police and informant. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant/accused. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant has been in jail since 26.02.2018 without committing any crime. That the office of the Superintendent Jail, Pratapgarh issued a Custody Certificate on 07.11.2023 according to said certificate till the date of issuance of the said certificate the appellant has been in jail for the last 6 years and 03 days, and now till date, the appellant is in jail from last 6 years, 6 months and 25 days. The photocopy of the Custody Certificate dated 07.11.2023 issued by the office of the Superintendent Jail, Pratapgarh is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 91 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B of I.P.C. and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station – Jethwara, District – Pratapgarh, during the pendency of this criminal appeal, in the interest of justice. |
I, Kamala Prasad aged about 52 years son of son of Sanehi resident of Village - Sajauli, Police Station - Sujauli, District – Bahraich, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the uncle/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant before this Hon'ble High Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. The first bail application No. 10378 of (B) 2021 was rejected by Hon’ble Shri Ram Krishna Gautam “J” on 13.04.2022 for want of prosecution. The photocopy of the orders dated 13.04.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That this is the second bail application is being moved before this Hon'ble High Court on some new facts and grounds, which have been left to be brought before this Hon'ble High Court for proper adjudication of the bail application. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated in case crime No. 143 of 2020 under Sections 326, 307, 329 registered at Police Station – Sajauli, District – Bahraich on 02.12.2020 at 00.18 hours, against the applicant and two other persons. The first information report is lodged by Shri Dhaniram Pal son of Khushiram Pal resident of the applicant’s village (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’). The photo/type copy of the first information report dated 02.12.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the informant stated in his first information report that his mother-in-law Gutti Devi wife of Gayadeen Lal got burn injuries by Kusumawati (mother of applicant/accused) and Mamta Pal (applicant/ accused) and brother of the applicant by Kerosene oil at 5.00 pm on 01.12.2020 in his field of turmeric crops, when his mother-in-law crying then the informant reach on place of incidence with giving alarm but the applicant, her mother and brother run away, the informant arrange the ambulance 102 by help of villagers and send the deceased to hospital after that he go to police station for lodged information report. That this is relevant to mention here that the deceased Gutti Devi is also the mother-in-law of the applicant's mother and grandmother of the applicant and brother of the applicant who are named in the mentioned first information report. That in the mentioned First Information Report informant alleged the story, the applicant due to being annoyed by the land dispute, caused the said incident and caused a burn injury to deceased Gutti Devi. That in the present case the statement of the informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded by th concerned police and he alleged that deceased Gutti Devi sell out some part of her tenancy recorded in her name deceased not want to give the rest tenancy to applicant' mother due to not maintained the deceased and in this reference some civil and revenue litigation are pending, when applicant's mother asses that deceased not transfer the said land to applicant' mother then on 01.12.2020 at 5.00 pm. applicant's mother and applicant and brother Mohit Lal pour petrol on the deceased with intention to cause death, when deceased cry then informant and his wife reach on the place of incident with given alarm but till then all the accused run away, the deceased is seriously injured the informant and his wife Gungaria see the said incident near the place of incident then with the help of villager through ambulance 108 to send on the deceased to hospital for treatment after that informant lodged the First information report against the accused. The typed copy of the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That in the present case the statement of the informant's wife Smt. Gungaria under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. also recorded in which she stated that she is the only daughter of the deceased and the applicant's mother married with her brother Bahraichi about 25 years ago by this marriage her brother had four issues, about four years ago applicant' mother kill her brother by gave poison, but due to little issues and acceptance of guilty by applicant's mother, they are not lodged a criminal case against the applicant's mother, the deceased had 11 Bigha agriculture land in which she gives them 5 Bigha land to applicant's mother and their issues and rest land in name and possession of Smt. Gungaria there is some litigation between the informant's wife and the applicant's mother about the land of the deceased and for said revenge the applicant's mother and applicant with her brother with the intention to cause the death of the deceased on dated 01.12.2020 at 5 pm. applicant to catch the deceased and applicant's mother pour the petrol on deceased and Mohit Pal burn her by matchstick. She saw all the incidence near the deceased, Phoolmati wife of Ranga and Radhika daughter of Ranga cut the grass in her field, Radhika cover the body of the deceased by her stole, the applicant's mother and the applicant, Mohit run away, by the help of villagers informant and Smt. Gungaria carried on deceased by ambulance 108 to the hospital of Mihipurwa and District Hospital Bahraich and from District Hospital Bahraich informant came to Sujauli Police Station to lodge the First information report. The typed copy of the statement of Gungaria is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this Affidavit. That in the present case the dying declaration was given by the deceased on 01.12.2020 at 11.53 pm. in the presence of Tehsildar Sadar Bahraich, in which the deceased stated, the applicant's mother and her granddaughter and grandson put on fire to the deceased by which she seriously injured. This is pertinent to mention here that in the statement it is stated she told the grandson and granddaughter to boy and girl, in the whole statement the deceased did not take the name of the applicant and she stated that the applicant's mother killed her husband Bahraichi about four year ago through poison, from the body smell of kerosene oil, due to the issues of agriculture land her daughter in law and grandson and granddaughter put on fire to deceased. The photo/typed of the dying declaration of the deceased is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this Affidavit. That the post mortem was conducted on 02.12.2020 at Post Mortem House, Bahraich by the doctor concerned and according to the post-mortem report the anti-mortem extensive burn injury which is 1st and 3rd degree burn anti-mortem burn present all over the body except the perineal area and both feet & soles. 2- Line reduces present, 3-Scalp hair and body hair probably singed. The photo/ typed copy of the post-mortem report dated 02.12.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this Affidavit. That the statement of Suraj Pal under section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the concerned police, who is son of the informant stated that the applicant's mother along with her daughter Mamta Pal (applicant) and son Mohit Pal (brother) put on fire as maternal grandmother Gutti Devi deceased by petrol at 5.00 pm. on 01.12.2020 due to the land dispute he is also the witness of inquest report he also stated that applicant's mother cause the death of sister-in-law (her brother wife) in which charge sheet No. 46 of 1997 has been submitted under Section 306 of I.P.C. on 09.10.1997 this witness also submitted the civil suit bearing Regular Suit No. 1327 of 2019 before the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.) Bahraich which is filed by Gutti Devi against the applicant's mother. The typed copy of the statement of Suraj Pal under section 161 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this Affidavit. That it is pertinent to mention here that Case Crime No. 63 of 1997 Police Station -Sujauli, District - Bahraich was wrongly lodged by the in-laws of the deponent against the deponent and his other family member in misconception, and later on said criminal case was disposed of. That in the present case the statement of eyewitnesses Smt. Phoolmati wife of Ranga under section 161 of Cr.P.C. stated she and her daughter Radhika cut the grass in her agricultural land where the crop of mustered stand and adjacent the agriculture land of the deceased where she cut the grass at 5 pm. on 01.12.2020 applicant's mother along with her daughter Mamta Pal (applicant) and son Mohit Lal (brother) came on the place of incidence and applicant catch the deceased and applicant's mother pour the petrol on deceased then Mohit through the match stick on deceased with the intention to cause death on the carrying of deceased when Phoolmati and her daughter reached then all the accused run away the said witness and her daughter try to save the deceased but deceased got seriously injured then Radhika Devi covered the deceased from her stole after that informant, his wife and other village person came on the place of incidence, due to the land dispute applicant's mother cause burn injury on deceased Gutti Devi. The typed copy of the statement of eyewitness Smt. Phoolmati and Radhika are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this Affidavit. That the investigation officer inspected the place of the incident and seized the bottle of petrol on 02.12.2020 it is also pertinent to mention here that the investigation officer and another person admitted the fuel was petrol. The photocopy of the seizing report of the inquiry officer dated 02.12.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this Affidavit. That the accused were arrested from their residence and they were not absconded because the applicant is innocent and has not committed the said offense. That all witnesses of the case crime gave contradictory statements to each other, which shows that the applicant is falsely implicated in the case crime. That when the applicant's mother maintained her family by 5 bigha agricultural land as stated by Gungaria the sister-in-law of the applicant's mother then no reason are arose to burn the deceased on the part of the applicant's mother and applicant. That it is falsely alleged by the witnesses the applicant's mother killed her husband Bahraichi only for litigation while her husband got his natural death. That on 01.12.2020 the deceased was medically examined at CHC Motipur Bahraich in which this was mentioned that the smell of kerosene oil was present. The copy of the injury report of the deceased dated 01.12.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this Affidavit. That neither the applicant has a motive nor has any motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question with which the applicant has no concern in any manner but a false and fabricated story by the concerned police and informant. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant/accused. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Sections 326, 307, 329, 302, 34 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That the trial against the applicant is initiated and is going on. The informant and his wife have been examined by the trial court as P.W. - 1 & 2 and their chief and cross-examination have been recorded by the trial court on 14.09.2021 and 02.10.2021, in which a lot of contradictions appeared between statements recorded under Sections 161 of Cr.P.C.. The photo/typed copy of the chief and cross-examination of the P.W. - 1 & 2 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 11 to this affidavit. That there are too many contradictions in the statements of the P.W.- 1 & 2. They both have told different stories to the trial court, which cannot stand on its own as the the applicant, her mother and her brother have been falsely implicated in the said case crime for the property. That there is no chance to conclude the trial of the applicant sooner as to date only the informant and his wife have been examined as P.W. - 1 & 2 and yet several witnesses are in queue for their examination as such in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during the pendency of his trial. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 836/12A/2021 before District Judge, Bahraich, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 16.06.2021. The certified copy of the order dated 16.06.2021 has been annexed with the first bail application No. 10378 of (B) 2021. The photocopy of the bail rejection order dated 16.06.2021 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 12 to this affidavit. That the applicant has born a child in jail where the life of the applicant’s baby will be ruined as such for the better future of the applicant’s baby, in the interest justice, the applicant would be released on bail. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant has been in jail since 03.12.2020 without committing any crime. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 143 of 2020 lodged under Sections 326, 307, 329, 302, 34 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Sajauli, District – Bahraich, in the interest of justice. |
I, Neeraj Pratap Singh aged about 43 son of Shri Jang Bahadur Singh resident of Badi Katariya, Atheha, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is brother of applicant and doing pairvi of applicant in the above noted case duly authorized by him and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo affidavit slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That the counsel of the applicant has explained the contents of the bail application in Hindi as such the deponent understand the same. That this is second bail application on behalf of the applicant before this Hon'ble High Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. First bail application No. 30660 of 2020 was rejected by Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha “J” & Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal “J” on 06.09.2022. The photocopy of the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That this second bail application is being moved before this Hon'ble High Court on some new facts and grounds, which have been left to be brought before this Hon'ble High Court for proper adjudication of the bail application. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant have falsely been implicated in Case Crime No. 289 of 2019 lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act registered at Police Station – Udaipur, District – Pratapgarh on 31.10.2010, against the 9 persons including the applicant. The photo/type copy of the first information report dated 31.10.2010 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the informant stated in his first information report that on 31.10.2010 around 5.00 PM, it is alleged that the Jang Bahadur Singhw was allegedly armed with lathi and his two sons i.e. the applicant and deponent were allegedly armed with gunds. It has been further alleged that on instigation of Jang Bahadur the applicant fired upon Dharmendra Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), who died, when he reached to hospital for treatment. That according to the prosecution the first information report was registered at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh at Case Crime Nill/ 2010 on 31.10.2010 at 11.00 PM thereafter the matter was referred to the Police Station – Udaipur and the case crime No. 289 of 2010 given to it. That without proper investigiation of the case crime, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against the 9 accused including the applicant under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act registered at Police Station – Udaipur, District – Pratapgarh. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the applicant. That the applicant has been convicted by the trial court to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and default of payment of fine to a further period of simple imprisonment for next two years vide order dated 13.01.2020 under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C.. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged case crime. That no indepnednt prosecution witnesses have been examined or produced by the prosecution in support of his case and only interest and partisan witnesses have been examined. That the evidence of the prosecution withnesses relied upon the trial court for the conviction of the applicant and the co-accused Jang Bahadur Singh, has been disbelieved in respect of several other co-accused persons in the present case who have been acquitted by the trial court. That there is no evidence against the applicant to convict him under Section 302/34 of I.P.C.. The trial court has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses while disposing of the trial. That the trial court did not appreciate the evidence of the witnesses produced before him and wrongly convicted the applicant and co-accused Jang Babadur Singh, who is the father of the applicant. That the medical of the deceased not supported the prosectution story and contradicts the oral evidences of the prosecution. The photo/typed copy of the post mortem report of the deceased is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That the P.W. – 2 Sanjeev Kumar Pandey (alleged injured) has stated in his statement that the co-accused Jang Babadur Singh has exhorted accused Neeraj Pratap Singh (acquitted by the trial court) who fired at Sanjeev Kumar Pandey causing injuries on his right hand. It is alleged in his statement that some perons had assaulted P.W. – 3 Shivam by lathi. A perusal of the statement of the Doctor who had examined the alleged injured Shivam P.W. – 3, would show that he has not received any injury (Dr. Sumut Kumar Pandy – P.W. -9), he did not find any injury on the person of Shivam. That here it is also relevant to point out that Dr. Sumit Kumar Pandey was allegedly posted at District Hospital, Pratapgarh on 31.10.2010 and he had allegedly examined Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, he has stated that in his statement that the injuries allegedly received by the alleged injured Sanjeev Kumar Pandey were caused by som blunt object, he has specifically stated that the alleged injured Sanjeev Kumar Pandy did not receive any firearm injury. That according to the statement of the Dr. Sumit Kumar Pandey/ P.W. – 9, only one blunt object inury was found on the right hand of the alleged injured Sanjeev Kumar Pandey whereas according to the statement of the prosecution witnesses severa persons had assaulted the alleged injured Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, thus the medical evidence contradicts the oral evidences of the prosecution. That as a matter of fact, the deceased did not give any statement either to the Doctor or to the police or to anybody else about the alleged incident and the police sub inspector appears to have mentioned in the police papers that the deceased while being taken to the hospital from the alleged place of occurance, had given some statement to him which was not recorded by him. That the applicant has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 926 of 2012 under Sections 323, 504 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Udaipur, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant is granted bail by the court concerned. That neither the applicant has motive nor has any motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question with which the applicant has no concern in any manner but false and fabricated story is by the concerned police and informant. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of case and there is no an evidence against the applicant/accused. That there is no credible evidence on record which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on record itself show that no prima-facie offence. That the parents of the applicant are old age persons and aged about 70 years and suffering from several oldage problems. There is no other male person in the house to take care of the family of the applicant. That the applicant is blessed with two sons and two daughters and without their father, the career of children of the applicant would be ruined. That the applicant is in jail since 13.01.2020 without committing any crime. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Mohd. Imran aged about 33 years son of Faiyaz Uddin resident of Bhatpurwa Yahiyapur, Police Station - Kandhai, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Muslim, Qualification – Illiterate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is brother of applicant and doing pairvi of the applicant in the above-noted case duly authorized by him and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo affidavit slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow of the deponent is pasted on the first page of this affidavit and a photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is annexed with this affidavit. That the counsel of the applicant has explained the contents of the bail application in Hindi as such the deponent understands the same. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the third bail application on behalf of the applicant before this Hon'ble High Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. The first bail application No. 6810 of (B) 2021 has been rejected by Hon’ble Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh “J” on 21.03.2022 and the second bail application No. 12341 (B) of 2022 has also been rejected by Hon'ble Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh “J” on 21.10.2022. The photocopy of the orders dated 21.03.2022 and 21.10.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this Affidavit. That this third bail application is being moved before this Hon'ble High Court on some new facts and grounds, which have been left to be brought before this Hon'ble High Court for proper adjudication of the bail application. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated by the opposite party No. 2 in case crime No. 168 of 2021 under Sections 375 of I.P.C., 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered by the opposite party No. 2 at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh on 24.02.2021 at 04.03 hours. The photo/type copy of the first information report dated 24.02.2021 lodged by the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That the opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that his niece i.e. the opposite party No. 2 studies at his house. The applicant is a resident of the nearby village of his niece and used to molest his niece several times on the way to and from school. The applicant and his brother, Asghar are criminals and do wrong things by threatening and luring the girls of the village and taking them out and selling them. Due to that fear, the sister of opposite party No. 2 sent her daughter to study at opposite party No. 2’s house. On 23.02.2021 at around 8 pm., the applicant entered the house of the opposite party No. 2 and committed rape with the opposite party No. 3. On alarm of the opposite party No. 3, the applicant caught hold by the opposite party No. 2 and others and brought him to the police station. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the allegations leveled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 23.02.2021 around 20.00 hours but the first information report has been lodged on 24.02.2021 at 04.03 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to the delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2and his family lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That the prosecution story i.e. the averments of the first information report lodged by the opposite party No. 2 itself is very doubtful as it is impossible for any person to pinpoint a room to hide at an unknown house and then wait there anticipation that the girl would come in the same room and when the girl would arrive, then the applicant could tie the cloth around her mouth and committed rape with the opposite party No. 3. That on 02.04.2021, the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the concerned police, in which he almost repeated the averments of the first information report lodged by him. The typed copy of the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 24.02.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That on the very same day i.e. 24.06.2022, the statement of the O. P. No. 3 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the concerned police, in which she stated that she used to live with her parents then the applicant used to harass & molest her on the way while going to school. Due to this, her parents sent her to the opposite party No. 2’s house to study. On 23.02021 at around 8 o'clock in the night, the applicant came to her room after that she went to her room then the applicant raped her. On the alarm of the opposite party No. 3, the opposite party No. 2 and others come and caught the applicant. The typed copy of the statement of the O. P. No. 3 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 24.02.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the medical examination of the opposite party No. 3 was conducted on 24.02.2021 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned in which neither any injury was found on the body of the opposite party No. 3 nor any other incriminating findings were mentioned in the medical examination of the opposite party No. 3. The radiological age of the opposite party No. 3 was ascertained as 18 years vide report supplementary medical report dated 03.03.2021. The photo/typed copy of the medical report dated 24.02.2021 and supplementary medical report dated 03.03.2021 are being annexed herewith collectively as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the statement of the O. P. No. 3 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has recorded before the concerned court after seven days i.e. on 01.03.2021, in which she stated that she changed her story and stated that she was alone at her house, then the applicant entered her house. The opposite party No. 3 further said that she had never seen the applicant before and after he came to her room, he tied a cloth on her face and raped her. The opposite party No. 3 further alleged that after some time the villagers along with her family members came, the applicant was running, he fell while running, then her family members caught him, then the police took him away. The photo/typed copy of the statement of the O. P. No. 3 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 01.03.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the medical examination of the opposite party No. 3 has not supported her statement given under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as the opposite party No. 3 stated her statement that the applicant hurt her many times on the body, he had threatened her a lot, while no single injury mentioned in the medical examination even the opposite party No. 3 denied for seeing before ever. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the opposite party No. 3 regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime goes to the root of the case rendering the prosecution case unworthy of any credit and in the instant case. That on a bare perusal of the records of the case reveals that the opposite party No. 3 is not so innocent as portrayed by the prosecution in its story rather the opposite party No. 3 appears to be the consenting party in the instant case, who had called the applicant, who pertinently lives in some other village to her maternal uncle’s house i.e. at opposite party No. 2’s house. That the opposite party No. 3 regularly changed her statements given under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. as such her testimony is not trustworthy. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet against the applicant under Sections 375 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 bearing charge sheet No. 197 of 2021 on 16.04.2021. That the real story of the case is that the applicant is a resident of the nearby village of the opposite party No. 3 and know each other. That the opposite party No. 3 and the applicant have fallen in love long back and they met regularly with each other the applicant and opposite party No. 3 decided to solemnized their marriage with their own WILL as both are major in age. That when the aforesaid fact came to knowledge of the family members of the opposite party No. 3 then they sent the opposite party No. 3 to the house of the opposite party No. 2 so that they could not meet each other anymore. That the family members of opposite party No. 3 came to the applicant’s house and threaten the applicant to break up the relationship with the opposite party No. 3 otherwise he faces consequences of the same. That on 23.02.2021, opposite party No. 3 made a phone call to the applicant and insisted to meet at the house of opposite party No. 2, at any cost otherwise she committed anything wrong with her. That the applicant went to the house of the opposite party No. 2, to meet with the opposite party No. 3, where he was caught by opposite party No. 2 and his family members and brought to the police station concerned. That here it is relevant to mention that the applicant was severely beaten by the opposite party No. 2 and his family members prior to being brought to the police station in order to teach him a lesson for loving the opposite party No. 3 and thereafter handed over him to the concerned police on 24.02.2021 around 03.30 hours. Thereafter the applicant was sent for medical examination wherein several injuries were found on the body of the applicant. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the applicant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That here it is relevant to mention that in the medical examination of the opposite party No. 3 which was well prompt, the mark or spot of the cloth tying is not found, however in the first information report as well as the statements of the opposite party No. 3 recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C., the such allegation was made. That neither the applicant went to the house of the opposite party No. 2 nor has committed rape with the opposite party No. 3 as alleged against him. The applicant has no concern in any manner but the false and fabricated story is by the concerned police and opposite party No. 2. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Sections 375 of I.P.C., 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the opposite party No. 2 to teach the lesson the applicant for loving the opposite party No. 3. That there is no possibility of the applicant's conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is the common man of the society and does not have any other criminal history. That no any independent witnesses of the crime supported the prosecution story against the applicant as the prosecution story is false, incorrect, and baseless. That the offense under Sections 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is not made out against the applicant as the age of the opposite party No. 3 has been ascertained above 18 years according to the radiological examination of the opposite party No. 3. That the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence alleged against him by the opposite party No. 2 and he has been falsely implicated in said case crime being belongs to the other religion. That the trial against the application is initiated and going on. The opposite party No. 3 has been examined by the trial court as P.W. - 2 and her chief and cross-examination have been recorded by the trial court on 27.07.2022 & 08.09.2022 respectively, in which a lot of contradictions appeared between the statements of the opposite party No. 3 recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C.. During the cross-examination, the opposite party No. 3/ P.W. - 2 stated that the applicant had not established a physical relationship with her ever. The photo/typed copy of the chief and cross-examination of the opposite party No. 3/ P.W. - 2 recorded by the trial court on 27.07.2022 & 08.09.2022 respectively are being annexed herewith collectively as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That this Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 21.10.2022, when the second bail application of the applicant was rejected, directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial within six months. The copy of the aforesaid order has been served before the trial court but after passing more than six months, the trial is not concluded yet. That there is no chance to conclude the trial of the applicant sooner as to date only the opposite party No. 2 & 3 has been examined as P.W. - 1 & 2 and yet 7 witnesses are in queue for their examination as such in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during the pendency of his trial. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1197 of 2021 before Special Judge, POCSO Act, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 15.06.2021. The certified copy of the order dated 15.06.2021 has been annexed with the first bail application No. 6810 of (B) 2021. The photocopy of the bail rejection order dated 15.06.2021 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is in jail since 24.02.2021 without committing any crime. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 168 of 2021 lodged under Sections 375 of I.P.C., 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh, during pendency of the case, in the interest of justice. |
I, Gulam Jilani aged about 26 years son of Farid Ahmad resident of Village – Kurwar, Police Station - Kurwar, District – Sultanpur, Qualification – Intermediate, Occupation – Private Job, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the son of the applicant and doing pairvi of the applicant in the above-noted case duly authorized by him and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo affidavit slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow of the deponent is pasted on the first page of this affidavit and a photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is annexed with this affidavit. That the counsel of the applicant has explained the contents of the bail application in Hindi as such the deponent understands the same. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the third bail application on behalf of the applicant before this Hon'ble High Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. The first bail application No. 6633 of (B) 2020 was rejected by Hon’ble Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh “J” on 22.04.2022 and the second bail application No. 1798 (B) of 2023 has also been rejected by Hon'ble Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh “J” on 14.03.2023. The photocopy of the orders dated 22.04.2022 and 14.03.2023 passed by this Hon'ble High Court are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this Affidavit. That this third bail application is being moved before this Hon'ble High Court on some new facts and grounds, which have been left to be brought before this Hon'ble High Court for proper adjudication of the bail application. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated by Shakeel Ahmad son of Sagir Ahmad resident of Village – Kurwar, Police Station - Kurwar, District – Sultanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the informant’) in case crime No. 308 of 2019 under Section 302 of I.P.C. registered by the informant at Police Station – Kurwar, District – Sultanpur on 23.06.2020 at 23.20 hours. The photo/type copy of the first information report dated 23.06.2020 lodged by the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That the informant stated in his first information report that his father namely Sagir Ahmad (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) has a tailoring shop in the Kurwar Market and on 23.06.2020 around 05.30 when he was going to the mosque for prayer at that time the applicant assaulted upon him and stabbed with scissors. The informant after getting information brought his father to the C.H.C., Kurwar, from where he was referred to the District Hospital, Sultanpur, where he was cleared dead. That the version of the first information report is totally false and baseless and the same depends upon the concocted story as such nothing happened as alleged by the informant in her first informant report. That the concerned police prepared the inquest report on 24.06.2020 in presence of the several villagers, in which nothing has been recorded in the name of the applicant. The photo/typed copy of the inquest report dated 24.06.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the dead body of the deceased was sent for the post-mortem at P. M. House Sultanpur and the post-mortem was conducted by the doctor concerned on 24.06.2020 in which the cause of death was ascertained as ‘Hemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem injury’. The photo/typed copy of the post-mortem of the deceased dated 24.06.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the investigating officer recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which the informant repeated his first information report version and stated name of some witnesses as eyewitnesses of the alleged incident. The typed copy of the statement of the informant is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the applicant was arrested by the concerned police on the very same of the alleged incident i.e. on 23.06.2020 and also prepared a false and fabricated recovery memo on 24.06.2020 showing that the murder weapon was recorded on the pointing out of the applicant. The photo/ typed copy of the recovery memo dated 24.06.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated by the informant in the aforesaid case crime and from the perusal of the entire material and evidences, collected by the investigating officer and also from the perusal of the contents of the first information report, it is evident that offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. is not made out against the applicant. That the prosecution's story is unbelievable and beyond the imagination as the informant and other witnesses have explained the story of the informant to fulfill the loopholes of the prosecution story. That the prosecution story i.e. the averments of the first information report lodged by the informant itself is very doubtful as there was no motive assigned for the murder of the deceased. That the post-mortem report also did not collaborate with the prosecution's story, which clearly shows that the applicant is falsely implicated in this case crime. That the deceased was murdered by unknown persons but the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case crime. That due to malafide intention, the informant for extraneous reasons, was falsely implicated in the first information report after knowing everything about the incident, while he has not committed any offense as alleged against him. That the applicant has no concern with the murder of the deceased in any manner as alleged by the informant and the allegation against the applicant along with the prosecution story is totally against truth and is not reliable in manner. That neither the applicant has a motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. That neither nothing has been recovered from the application possession nor pointing of him, which shows that the applicant has not committed the case crime as alleged against him, however, the concerned police for extraneous reasons prepared a false recovery memo. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 of Cr.P.C. regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime goes to the root of the case rendering the prosecution case unworthy of any credit and in the instant case. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself shows that no prima-facie offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant and there is no possibility of the applicant's conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That without the proper investigation of the case crime, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against the applicant on 04.08.2019, in which 14 witnesses were assigned. That this Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 14.03.2023, when the second bail application of the applicant was rejected, directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial within one year. The copy of the aforesaid order has been served before the trial court but after more than one year, the trial is not concluded yet. That the trial against the application is initiated and going on and there is no chance to conclude the trial of the applicant sooner as to date only two witnesses have been examined as P.W. - 1 & 2 and yet 12 witnesses are in queue for their examination as such in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during the pendency of his trial. The photo/typed copy of the order sheet of the trial is being annexed as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1966 of 2019 before Session Judge, Sultanpur, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 21.05.2020. The certified copy of the order dated 15.06.2021 has been annexed with the first bail application No. 6633 of (B) 2020. The photocopy of the bail rejection order dated 21.05.2020 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is in jail since 24.06.2020 without committing any crime. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 308 of 2019 lodged under Section 302 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Kurwar, District – Sultanpur, during pendency of the case, in the interest of justice. |
The applicant named above most respectfully states us under: For the fact reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying supplementary Affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the registry to take the supplementary rejoinder affidavit to the supplementary affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2 on 04.01.2024, in above noted case, on record and grant bail to the applicant in connection with Case Crime No. 201 of 2022 under Sections 376-D, 506 of I.P.C and 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Mandhata, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of Justice. Lucknow (Dr. Gyan Singh) Advocate Criminal Misc. Case No. 2867 (BAIL) of 2023 Sajjad Ahmad aged about 25 years son of Sahmshad resident of Village - Dubahi, Police Station - Mandhata, District - Pratapgarh .....Applicant/Accused (In jail since 21.09.2022) Versus State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, U.P., Lucknow Complainant of Case Crime No. 0201/2022 U/s 376-D, 506 IPC & 5(G)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station – Mandhata, District – Pratapgarh S.H.O./I.O. Police Station – Mandhata, District – Pratapgarh Child Welfare Committee through its Chairman, District – Pratapgarh High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, High Court, Lucknow .....Opposite Parties I, Mohammad Idrish aged about 58 years son of Fariduddin resident of Village - Purela, Chittpalgarh, Police Station - Delhupur, District - Pratapgarh, Religion – Muslim, Education – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the ____________/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That it is further declared that the counsel of the applicant has explained the contents of the supplementary affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 2 and instant affidavit in Hindi and the deponent understands the content of the said affidavits and as such he is in a position to give the parawise reply to the counter affidavit. However, before giving reply, the humble deponent is giving some facts for judicious disposal of the bail application. That the deponent being the relative of the applicant doing pairvi of the applicant as such the opposite party No. 2 tried to build pressure upon the deponent and others, lodged a first information report on 06.11.2022 on the basis of the false and incorrect facts. That the deponent and others have not committed the offense as alleged by the opposite party No. 2 in her first information report and after receiving the copy of the supplementary affidavit dated 04.01.2024, the counsel of the applicant informed him regarding the false first information report lodged by the opposite party No. 2. That the deponent has neither received any notice under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. from the concerned police nor summon from the court concerned. The opposite party No. 2 lodged the said first information report to build pressure upon the deponent for the purpose that the deponent could not do the pairvi of the applicant. That the contents of para No. 1 & 2 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 2 need no comments. That the contents of para No. 3 & 4 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 2 stated in the manner are not admitted and hence denied being incorrect. In reply thereto, it is submitted that the opposite party No. 2 lodged the first information report with malafide intention to build pressure upon the deponent to denied doing a pairvi of the applicant and make grounds for rejection of the bail moved by the deponent. That the co-accused of the case crime namely Jeeshan Ahmad also moved a bail application before this Hon'ble High Court bearing Crl. Misc. Case No. 6927 of 2023, has been allowed by this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 28.10.2023. The photocopy of the order dated 28.10.2023 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. SA -1 to this affidavit. That the case of the applicant is also similar to the co-accused namely Jeeshan Ahmad as such the applicant would be also released by this Hon'ble High Court on the basis of the parity of the case. That here it is relevant to mention that the opposite party No. 2 has not brought the above false and fabricated first information report prior, at the time of granting the bail order of the co-accused. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Case Crime No. 201 of 2022 under Sections 376-D, 506 of I.P.C and 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Mandhata, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of Justice. |
I, Nanhe aged about 53 years son of Shri Sheetal, resident of Village – Kewalapur Kherauna, Police Station - Amethi, District – Amethi, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the father/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That this is the first bail application on behalf of the applicant before the Hon'ble Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated in case crime No. 190 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 304B, 506 of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station – Amethi, District – Amethi on 15.06.2022 at 12.42 hours, against the applicant and 3 othis family members. The first information report is lodged by Shri Sajjan Lal son of Shri Mishri Lal resident of Village – Adamapur, Police Station – Amethi, District – Amethi (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’). The certified/ type copy of the first information report dated 15.06.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That the informant stated in his first information report that the marriage of the applicant and his sister namely Nandini (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was solemnized and the applicant on demand of the dowry i.e. for Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle, murdered the deceased on 13.06.2022. That it is relevant to mention here that the informant himself stated that he was informed with regard to the death of the deceased by the applicant but the informant planned and falsely implicated the applicant and his family members to get financial benefit. Thereafter on basis of legal advice, the first information report has been lodged against the applicant and his family members on wrong and baseless facts. That the inquest report was prepared by the concerned police in presence of the Panchan and also in presence of the informant and other persons, who are the residents of the informant’s village on 13.06.2022. The photo/type copy of the inquest report dated 13.06.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the body of the deceased was sent for the post-mortem on 14.06.2022 at District Hospital, Amethi wherein the post-mortem was done by doctors. The photo/type copy of the post-mortem report dated 14.06.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That according to the post-mortem report, no injury was found on the body of the deceased and the time of death of the deceased was about 36 hours back, which is also not collaborated with the prosecution story. That the statement of the informant has been recorded by the concerned police under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 15.06.2022 and therein the informant repeated his first information report version in another manner and tried to develop his prosecution story to fill the loopholes of the prosecution story. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 15.06.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this Affidavit. That the statement of the father, mother and sister-in-law of the deceased was also recorded by the concerned police under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 30.07.2022 in which they repeated the version of the informant in their own words and tried their best to falsely implicate the applicant and his family members in said case crime. That later on 28.08.2022, the further statement of the informant has been recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he stated that the marriage of the sister of the informant and the applicant solemnized on 11.06.2019, when due to several restrictions been imposed due to the Covid-19, hence marriage solemnized in Chandrikan Dham Mandir. He further stated that due to Covid-19, he had not invited the several persons in said marriage and even, Pandit and Nai also. The typed copy of the further statement of the informant dated 28.08.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this Affidavit. That the investigating officer for extraneous reasons, believed on the further statement of the informant while the Covid-19 was spread in the year 2020 not in 2019 as alleged by the informant. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant and the deceased has a love relationship for a long back and the informant and his family were not happy with the relationship between the deceased and the applicant. That the applicant’s family welcomed the relationship of the applicant & deceased and their marriage was solemnized in the temple and the deceased resided with the applicant and his family members happily. That the informant and his family members have always called the deceased and humiliated her due to which the deceased was upset and going into deep mental trauma. That the sadness of the deceased increased day by day and she has gone into a deep depression. That here it is relevant to mention that the deceased was a short-tempered lady and due to regular pressure from her parental house, she become more aggressive and also not in a position to take good decisions due to her anger. That the mother of the applicant went to her parental house on 10.06.2022 for her nephew’s marriage, which was fixed for 18.06.2022 and then the deceased was alone at the house. That during the said period, the informant and his family members build extreme pressure upon the deceased for leaving her husband i.e. the applicant and the applicant’s house and being a short-tempered lady the deceased hanged herself and committed suicide. That on 13.06.2022 around 11.00 hours, the deceased fought with the applicant for purchasing a new sewing machine, however, the applicant assured he will purchase a second-hand machine as his budget not allowed for the new purchase. That thereafter the applicant went to drive the tractor for his livelihood meanwhile the deceased, who was also under extreme pressure from her parental house, committed suicide by hanging herself. That the informant was informed immediately by the applicant after said unfortunate incident and thereafter he came to the applicant’s house. That after getting information regarding the death of the deceased, the informant moved an application before the concerned Police Station – Amethi, District – Amethi on 13.06.2022 stating therein that his sister committed suicide and the reason is unknown. The photo/typed copy of the application moved by the informant before the concerned Police Station on 13.06.2022 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That thereafter due to certain reasons for harassing the applicant and his family members for saving themselves, the informant for extraneous reasons lodged the first information against the applicant and others after getting legal advice. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant/accused. That the investigating officer without proper investigation of the case crime submitted the charge sheet against the applicant and other under bearing Charge Sheet No. A259 of 2022 on 10.09.2022 under Sections 498A, 304B, 506 of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The photocopy of the charge sheet dated 10.09.2022 submitted in case crime is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this affidavit. That the mother of the applicant has been also enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 03.02.2023. The photocopy of the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. That neither the applicant has a motive nor has any motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offence is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which was given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That no involvement in the said case as alleged in the first information report, the applicant has no reason to murder the deceased. That there is no possibility of the applicant's conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is a common man of society. He has never been involved in any criminal activities ever. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this . That the applicant/accused is in Jail since 20.06.2022 without committing any crime. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That the applicant had applied for bail application bearing Bail Application No. 559 of 2023 but the same has been rejected by the Sessions Judge, Sultanpur on insufficient grounds vide order dated 17.03.2023. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 17.03.2023 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 190 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 304B, 506 of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station – Amethi, District – Amethi, during the pendency of the case. |
I, Anil Kumar aged about 25 years son of Shri Ramkumar resident of Village – Vishundaspur Ganipur, Police Station – Ramganj, District – Amethi, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Student, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the nephew/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application pending before this or rejected by this . That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against applicant and others on 17.07.2022 by informant namely Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Late Vishram resident of Village – Vishundaspur, Police Station – Ramganj, District – Amethi (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) bearing Case Crime No. 82 of 2022 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 34, 376, 511, 354B of IPC at Police Station – Ramganj, District – Amethi. The photocopy of the first information report dated 17.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according the first information report the informant stated in her first information report that on 25.09.2021 around 22.00 hours the applicant entered in the house of the informant alongwith unknown person and raped her. On alarm of the informant her sons and others came to incident place the applicant beaten her. When the informant went to the house of the applicant for complaining then the brother, son and others have abusing the informant. That after 9 days of the lodging the first information report, the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded on 26.07.2022 by the concerned police, in which she changed her statement and stated that the applicant tried to rape her and also tried to develop her prosecution story. The typed copy of the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 26.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the informant refused to get examined medically after she was produced before medical officer of the concerned hospital without any reason, which was duly signed by the son of the informant. The denial from the medical by the informant herself which has been duly supported by her son, which itself creates doubt upon the prosecution story. The photo/typed copy of the denial of the medical of the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the statement of informant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded before the concerned court after one month of the on 17.08.2022, in which she again changed her statement of the 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as version of the first information report and she admitted that the applicant had not raped her and also not beaten by him on alleged date of incident. The typed copy of the statement of informant under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 17.08.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the statement of the son of the informant has also recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as eyewitness of the case crime, in which he also tried his best to falsely implicate the applicant and others in said case crime. The typed copy of the statement of son of the informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the real story of the case is in nutshell: one resident of the villager namely Mahesh Kumar, who is also named in aforesaid case crime, is the friend of the applicant and the applicant is named in aforesaid crime merely ground that he is friend of Mahesh Kumar, while the applicant has no concerned with the said alleged incident. That the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar and his family residing their ancestral house situated at Village – Vishundaspur, Police Station – Ramganj, District – Amethi. That in year 1987, the state government given 5 biswa land to the wife of the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar on lease for agriculture. Later on, when the family of the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar become large then he build a kachchaa house on his land, which is away from his old house. That after moving in new house, the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar and his family members also using his old house without any hurdle, where the applicant almost daily visited being friend of Mahesh Kumar. That thereafter the informant and her sons demolished the wall of the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar’s house and put their household items in the old house of the applicant. That when the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar tried to re-build the wall of his house then the informant and her sons have beaten the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar and his family members then the mother of the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar moved an application before the concerned Police Station for lodging the first information report against the informant and her sons on 22.04.2021 but nothing has done by him. The photo/ typed copy of the application moved by the mother of the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar before the concerned Police Station on 22.04.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That thereafter the informant herself moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, District – Amethi through IGRS portal, in which the concerned police given his report stating therein that the informant herself tried to take possession on the land of the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar and for the precaution, the proceeding under Sections 107/116 of Cr.P.C. done on 26.10.2021. The photocopy of the IGRS/police report given by the concerned Police Station is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That meanwhile, the informant filed the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the court concerned for building the pressure of the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar and his family members and the court concerned without considering the fact of the case, passed order for lodging the first information report against the applicant also merely that the applicant is the friend of Mahesh Kumar and others and in compliance of the same, the first information report dated 17.08.2022 lodged. That the whole story cooked by the informant and her family members against the applicant and explained by the concerned police after knowing everything, while the applicant has no concerned with the said incident. That the son of the informant is not the eyewitness of the alleged incident and prosecution story as narrated therein highly improbable, improper and unnatural and unbelievable for prudent man. The informant herself admitted that the applicant not raped her. That without proper investigation of the case, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet No. 98 of 2022 under Sections 376, 511, 34, 506 of IPC on 20.08.2022 against the applicant. The photocopy of the charge sheet dated 20.08.2022 submitted by the concerned police is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That a false story cooked up by the concerned police and the informant and her family members for obtaining the money form the state government, which is given to the rapped informant. That there is no any evidence against the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid case crime. that the fact that the informant had refused her medical examination after levelling very serious allegations of rape against the applicant and not giving any explanation for the same, indicates the possibility of false implication of the accused. No justification or logical reason is coming forth from the informant regarding the refusal of the informant for her medical examination. The refusal of the informant to get her medical examination conducted and give samples indicates the possibility of false prosecution of the applicant and throws a doubt on the veracity of her allegations against the applicant. That where the evidence of the informant is found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material and there being refusal by the informant to undergo medical examination, then no reliance can be placed upon her evidence. Onus is always on the informant to prove and informant is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. That the case of the informant is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from weakness of case of defence. In case the evidence is read in totality and story projected by the informant is found to be improbable, prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected. The informant knew the accused prior to the incident. If evidence of informant is read and considered in totality of circumstances along with other evidence on record, in which offence is alleged to have been committed, her deposition does not inspire confidence. That in the present case there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the applicant did not have a motive to commit the offence. That the informant denied to have examined medically without reason, which creates doubt the prosecution story thus the absence of any medical report/examination of the informant would go in favour of the applicant and he is entitled to get benefit of doubt. That the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar i.e. another accused of the case crime has been granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 17.10.2022. The photocopy of the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant and their family members in malafide intention. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 2949 of 2022 before Sessions Judge, Sultanpur and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 21.09.2022. Here it is relevant to mention that the free certified copy of the order dated 21.09.2022 has been misplaced by deponent due to which another certified copy of the order has been prepared for filing this bail application. The free certified copy of the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by court concerned is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That the applicant in jail since 19.09.2022 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 82 of 2022 under Sections 376, 511, 34, 506 of IPC registered at Police Station – Ramganj, District – Amethi, in the interest of justice. |
I, Manish Maurya aged about 23 years son of Shri Hari Prasad Maurya resident of 6, Katchery Road, District - Prayagraj (earlier Allahabad, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Private Job, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the son/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the applicant on 02.06.2023 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 72 of 2023 under Sections 376 AB of I.P.C. and 5m, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh. The certified copy of the first information report dated 02.06.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according the first information report, the opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that on 02.06.2023 around 10.30 AM the applicant was in a drunken stage and brought the opposite party No. 3 into his house and molested her and when the opposite party No. 3 started crying, the applicant pushed her and she has fallen nearby stair. From where the opposite party No. 3 was brought to her house by the cousin brother of the opposite party No. 2. That the medical of the opposite party No. 3 was conducted on 02.06.2023 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned, in which nothing has been found with regard to the allegations of the opposite party No. 2. The photocopy of the medical report dated 02.06.2023 and supplementary medical report dated 03.06.2023 are being annexed herewith collectively as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on 02.06.2023, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the concerned police, in which he almost repeated his first information report and also tried to develop his prosecution story. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 02.06.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That on 02.06.2023, the statement of the alleged eyewitness i.e. cousin brother of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the concerned police, in which he repeated almost the first information report lodged by the opposite party No. 2. The typed copy of the statement of the alleged eyewitness dated 02.06.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That on 03.06.2023, the statement of the opposite party No. 3 was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the concerned police in which she changed the prosecution story and stated that when she was crying after molestation at that moment alleged eyewitness entered the house of the applicant and scolded him. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 3 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That on 03.06.2023, the statement of the mother of the opposite party No. 3 was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the concerned police in which she repeated the statement of the opposite party No. 3. The typed copy of the statement of the mother of the opposite party No. 3 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the statement of opposite party No. 2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the concerned court, in which she almost repeated her statement of the 161 of Cr.P.C.. The typed copy of the statement of opposite party No. 2 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 15.07.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That on the perusal of the statement of the opposite party No. 3 given under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C., it is clear that the words used by the opposite party No. 3 are not her words, those words were put in the mouth of the opposite party No. 3 by the opposite party No. 2 and concerned police. That without proper investigation of the case crime, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet No. 71 of 2023 under Sections 376 AB of I.P.C. and 5m, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 on 09.06.2023 for extraneous reasons. That the real story of the case is that the applicant and opposite party No. 2 & 3 are family members. That the applicant was a government employee and retired from Gram Panchayat Department at District Prayagraj and rarely visited his native place. That the applicant’s daughter is fixed and for money, he was trying to sell his land and the opposite party No. 2 showed his interest in purchasing the applicant’s land. That the opposite party No. 2 offered too low a price while the market value of the applicant’s land is too high as such the applicant denied selling his land to the opposite party No. 2. That after denial from selling his land, the opposite party No. 2 annoyed and threatened the applicant to face consequences and the first information report was lodged on the basis of the false and incorrect grounds to blackmail the applicant. That there are no any genuine ground found by the concerned police against the applicant and for extraneous reasons, the charge sheet has been filed against the applicant in said case crime. That the cousin brother of the opposite party No. 2 is not the eyewitness of the alleged incident and prosecution story as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural and unbelievable for a prudent man. That there is no any evidence against the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid case crime. That in the present case there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the applicant did not have the motive to commit the offense. That since the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the opposite party No. 2 and their family members with malafide intentions. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 2576 of 2023 and his bail application has been rejected by the Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Pratapgarh on 20.10.2023. The free certified copy of the order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the court concerned is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offense. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 72 of 2023 under Sections 376 AB of I.P.C. and 5m, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice. |
I, Smt. Sukhamata aged about 54 years wife of Dayaram resident of Village – Kanrahiya, Mungar, Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Sultanpur, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Housewife, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the mother/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this or rejected by this . That brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant and two other persons on 16.08.2023 by the informant namely Smt. Sukhkha Devi wife of Vijay Kumar Vishwakarma resident of Village – Ramchandrapur, Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Sultanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) bearing Case Crime No. 345 of 2023 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 34, 376, 511, 354B of IPC at Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Sultanpur regarding incident dated 09.08.2023. The photocopy of the first information report dated 16.08.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report the informant stated in her first information report that on 09.08.2023 around 10.00 hours, the daughter of the informant returning from the field at that one Prince brought her and committed rape with her. As per the first information report, another accused namely Chandradev alias Sidhdhu was making vedio and the applicant was present there. The informant further alleged the accused of the case crime threatened her daughter as such he did not told anything to anyone. That the alleged incident which was occurred on 09.08.2023 around 10.00 hours but the first information report was lodged on 16.08.2023 after about 7 days, without giving any explanation with regard to the delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the informant and her family lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the concerned police, in which she slightly changed her statement and tried to develop her prosecution story. The typed copy of the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the victim was medically examined on 16.08.2023 at District Women Hospital, Sultanpur and her medical report does not corroborate the prosecution story and nothing has been found regarding the commission of rape with her. The photo/ typed copy of the medical report dated 04.08.2022 of the victim is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the statement of the daughter of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the concerned police, in which she almost repeated the version of the first information report and stated against the applicant that he was present at the time of the alleged incident. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the concerned court on 19.08.2023, in which she changed her statement of the 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as the version of the first information report and stated that the applicant has also committed rape with her. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 19.08.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim given under Sections 161 & 164 is not trustworthy as both statements have several contradictions, which have been clearly shown the same. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only false, incorrect facts and grounds and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident in any manner, the applicant has been falsely implicated by the informant due to extraneous reasons. That the applicant is the friend of another accused Chandradev Vishawkarma alias Sidhdhu and the third accused Prince is the common friend of the applicant and another. That the informant and her family have enmity with the family of another accused Chandradev Vishawkarma alias Sidhdhu, due to which a false case has been lodged against the applicant and his friends due to personal revenge and party-bandi. That against the applicant, no role was assigned in the first information report, in the statements of the informant & her daughter recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. but suddenly at the time recording the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the entire prosecution story has been changed by the informant & her daughter. That the whole story was cooked by the informant and her family members against the applicant and explained by the concerned police after knowing everything, while the applicant has no concerns with the said incident. That without proper investigation of the case, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet under Sections against the applicant. The photocopy of the charge sheet dated submitted by the concerned police is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That except the present case, the applicant has no criminal history. That there is no any evidence against the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid case crime. That since the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant and their family members with malafide intentions. That the case of the informant is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defense. In case the evidence is read in totality and the story projected by the informant is found to be improbable, the prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected. If evidence of the informant is read and considered in the totality of circumstances along with other evidence on record, in which offense is alleged to have been committed, his deposition does not inspire confidence. That where the evidence of the informant is found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material, then no reliance can be placed upon her evidence. The onus is always on the informant to prove and the informant is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. That in the present case there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the applicant did not have the motive to commit the offense. That since the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant and their family members with malafide intentions. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 2938 of 2023 before Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 07.10.2023 without considering the grounds. The free certified copy of the order dated 07.10.2023 passed by the court concerned is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the applicant is in jail since .2023 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offense. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 345 of 2023 under Sections 376-D, 506, 34 of IPC and 67 of the Information of Technology Act registered at Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Sultanpur, in the interest of justice. |
I, Subham Singh aged about 29 years son of Shri Awadhesh Kumar Singh resident of Village - Sajampur, Post - Harpur, Jagdishpur, Police Station - Akhand Nagar, District - Sultanpur, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – __________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the son/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and the content of the application & affidavit have been explained by the counsel of the applicant in Hindi to her and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and her photo affidavit issued by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow is affixed to the affidavit. That this is the first bail of the applicant filed before this Hon’ble Court and no other bail application on the same cause of action is filed or pending in any court of law. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That on 30.06.2008 at about 23.00 Hours, the informant Shri P. P. Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station – Kadipur, District – Sultanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) lodged a first information report against 04 persons including the applicant as Case Crime No. 794 of 2008 under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Kadipur, District – Sultanpur. The photo and typed copy of the first information report dated 30.06.2008 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the alleged accused as mentioned in the first information report are committing the crime, regularly as they are habitual, for their economic benefit, and due to their terror, no one can dare to speak against them. The photocopy of the gang chart is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is totally innocent and does not commit any offense as alleged in the first information report by the informant. That the informant in order to show his good and hard work, falsely implicated the applicant in four cases, including the present case crime, in which the present bail is being filed by this applicant, and thereafter finally lodged the said first information report dated 30.06.2008 under 3(1) of Gangster Act: Case Crime No. 594 of 2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 of IPC registered at Police Station – Kadipur, District – Sultanpur, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the court below on 18.09.2023. Case Crime No. 783 of 2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC registered at Police Station – Kadipur, District - Sultanpur, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the court below on 22.09.2023. Case Crime No. 784 of 2008 under Section 387 of IPC registered at Police Station - Kadipur, District - Sultanpur, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the court below on 22.09.2023. The photocopies of the orders dated 18.09.2023 & 22.09.2023 passed by the court concerned are being annexed herewith collectively as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is a common man of society. He is neither a member of the alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involves any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not do any offense for his economic and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That the applicant in jail since ___.___._______ without committing any offense as alleged by the informant in relation the impugned case crime. That the applicant has no concern with any gang in any manner as alleged by the informant and also the prosecution story is totally against the circumstances and facts and the same is not reliable in manner. That the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That the Gangster has been imposed by the concerned police only on the basis of only case, which is already lodged on the false and incorrect facts against the applicant. That the applicant had moved his bail application No. 2696 of 2023 before the Additional District & Session Judge/ FTC Second/Special Judge Gangster Act, Sultanpur and the same was rejected on 16.09.2023 without considering the version of the applicant. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 16.09.2023 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That the applicant is ready to furnish personal bond and sureties to the entire satisfaction before the court if the bail is granted to him. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 794 of 2008 under Sections 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 registered at Police Station – Kadipur, District – Sultanpur, during the pendency of his trial, during the pendency of his trial, in the interest of justice. |
I, Virendr Kumar aged about 47 years son of Shri Ram Das resident of Village – Rajapur, Police Station – Gosainganj, District - Sultanpur, Education – Literate, Occupation – _________________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photo affidavit issued by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow is affixed to the affidavit. That this is the first bail of the applicant filed before this Hon’ble Court and no other bail application on the same cause of action is filed or pending in any court of law. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That on 27.04.2024 at about 22.23 Hours, the informant Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Inspector, Police Station – Gosainganj, District – Sultanpur lodged a first information report against 2 persons including the applicant at Case Crime No. 171 of 2024 under Section 2, 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Gosainganj, District – Sultanpur. The certified and typed copy of the first information report dated 27.04.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the alleged accused as mentioned in the first information report are committing the crime, regularly as they are habitual, for their economic benefit, and due to their terror, no one can dare to speak against them. That prior to lodging the aforesaid case crime against the applicant and another, the gang chart was approved by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur on 09.04.2024. The photocopy of the gang chart dated 09.04.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is totally innocent and does not commit any offense as alleged in the first information report by the informant. That the informant in order to show his good and hard work, falsely implicated the applicant in a case and thereafter finally lodged the said first information report dated 27.04.2024 under Section 2, 3(1) Gangster Act: Case Crime No. 452 of 2023 under Sections 307 of IPC, 33 5A, 8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act registered at Police Station – Gosainganj, District – Sultanpur, in which, the applicant has enlarged on bail by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. Second, Sultanpur vide its order dated 01.12.2023. The photocopy of the order dated 01.12.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. Second, Sultanpur is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is a common man of society. He is neither a member of the alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involves any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not any offense for his economic and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That the applicant in jail since 26.04.2024 without committing any offense as alleged by the informant in relation the impugned case crime. That the applicant has no concern with any gang in any manner as alleged by the informant and also the prosecution story is totally against the circumstances and facts and is not reliable in manner. That the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That the applicant had moved his bail application bearing No. 1210 of 2024 before the Bail was rejected by Additional Session and Judge/ F.T.C. First/ Special Judge Gangster Act, Sultanpur, and the same was rejected on 02.05.2024, in a very mechanical manner without considering the fact of the case. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 02.05.2024 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That the applicant is ready to furnish personal bond and sureties to the entire satisfaction before the court if the bail is granted to him. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 171 of 2024 under Sections 2, 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 registered at Police Station – Gosainganj, District – Sultanpur, in the interest of justice. |
I, Ajay Kumar Singh aged about 52 years son of Shri Ram Lakhan Singh resident of Village - Basantpur, Tiwaripur, Post - Chandaur, Police Station - Kurwvar, District - Sultanpur, Education – Literate, Occupation – _________________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the brother/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photo affidavit issued by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow is affixed to the affidavit. That this is the first bail of the applicant filed before this Hon’ble Court and no other bail application on the same cause of action is filed or pending in any court of law. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That on 26.03.2024 at about 18.50 Hours, the informant namely Shri Rakesh Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station – Jagdishpur, District – Amethi lodged a first information report against 5 persons including the applicant at Case Crime No. 109 of 2024 under Section 2, 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Jagdishpur, District – Amethi. The certified and typed copy of the first information report dated 26.03.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the alleged accused as mentioned in the first information report are committing the crime, regularly as they are habitual, for their economic benefit, and due to their terror, no one can dare to speak against them. That prior to lodging the aforesaid case crime against the applicant and another, the gang chart was approved by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur. The photocopy of the gang chart is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is totally innocent and does not commit any offense as alleged in the first information report by the informant. That the informant in order to show his good and hard work, falsely implicated the applicant in a case and thereafter finally lodged the said first information report dated 26.03.2024 under Section 2, 3(1) Gangster Act: Case Crime No. 255 of 2023 under Sections 379, 411, 413 of I.P.C. and 10 Goonda Act registered at Police Station – Jagdishpur, District – Amethi, in which, the applicant has enlarged on bail by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Room No. 3, Sultanpur vide its order dated 18.08.2023. The photocopy of the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Room No. 3, Sultanpur is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is a common man of society. He is neither a member of the alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involves any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not any offense for his economic and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That the applicant in jail since without committing any offense as alleged by the informant in relation the impugned case crime. That the applicant has no concern with any gang in any manner as alleged by the informant and also the prosecution story is totally against the circumstances and facts and is not reliable in manner. That the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That the applicant had moved his bail application bearing No. 2723 of 2024 before the Bail was rejected by Additional Session and Judge/ Special Judge Gangster Act, Room No. 1, Sultanpur, and the same was rejected on 05.10.2024, in a very mechanical manner without considering the fact of the case. The free copy of the bail rejection order dated 05.10.2024 passed by the learned court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That the applicant is ready to furnish personal bond and sureties to the entire satisfaction before the court if the bail is granted to him. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 109 of 2024 under Sections 2, 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 registered at Police Station – Jagdishpur, District – Amethi, in the interest of justice. |
I, Sonu Sonkar aged about 28 years son of Shri Hridayram Sonkar resident of Sisauda, Mahamudpur, Semari, Police Station - Jaisinghpur, District - Sultanpur, Education – Literate, Occupation – Vegetable seller, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the brother/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this or rejected by this . That brief fact of the case is that; on 23.08.2023 at 17.09 hours the first information report lodged by the informant Satish Gupta against the unknown person bearing Case Crime No. 493 of 2023 under Sections 379 of I.P.C. and 197 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 registered at Police Station – Akbarpur, District – Ambedkar Nagar. The certified/ photocopy of the first information report dated 23.08.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That the brief of the first information report, in a nutshell, is that on 25.07.2023 around 05.30 P.M., the motorcycle of the informant was stolen by an unknown person and when it was found then the informant lodged the first information report. That on 28.08.2023, the statement of the informant was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he repeated his first information report version. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 28.08.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That later on, on the basis of the false and incorrect information, the applicant was arrested along with two other accused and also recovered the 8 motorcycles, one mobile phone, and a first information report bearing Case Crime No. 196 of 2023 under Sections 41, 411, 413, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station – Aliganj, District – Ambedkar Nagar lodged against the applicant and others on 02.09.2023. That the applicant is innocent and has no concerns with the alleged recovery of the vehicles and he has been falsely implicated in the case crime for extraneous reasons by the concerned police to show his good work in the department. That so far as the recovery of the mobile phone, it was owned by the applicant and there is no any recovery was made from the possession of the applicant. That after the arrest of the applicant, his name was revealed in Case Crime No. 493 of 2023 and under the life threat, the confessional statement of the applicant was recorded/written by the investigating officer of the case crime on 09.09.2023 as per his wish, while the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant was working as a helper with the co-accused Puneet Yadav, on the truck, which was driven by Puneet Yadav for a long back. That the father of co-accused Puneet Yadav lodged the first information report against the informant of the police, bearing Case Crime No 186 of 2022 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. at Police Station - Bewana, District - Ambedkar Nagar as such the co-accused has been arrested from his house along with the applicant when he was visited at the house of the co-accused. That being the friend of the co-accused, the applicant has been falsely named in the first information report whereas the applicant has no concern with the alleged recovery in any manner. The concerned police blindly believe the version of the informant without any substantial evidence. That on perusal of the first information report and the entire records, no case is made out against the applicant under Sections 379, 411 of I.P.C.. That the first information report has been lodged against the applicant on the basis of the false, fabricated, and concocted story without any rhyme, reason, or basis whereas the applicant has not committed any offense. That after lodging the aforesaid case crime No. 196 of 2023, the concerned police also named in the first information reports, which are as under:- Case Crime No. 408 of 2023 under Sections 379 of I.P.C. and 197 of M. V. Act, 1988 registered at Police Station - Akabarpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar. Case Crime No. 186 of 2022 lodged under Sections 506, 504, 323, 452, 147 at Police Station - Bewana, District - Ambedkar Nagar. Case Crime No. 66 of 2023 lodged under Sections 379 of I.P.C. at Police Station - Vibhuti Khand, District - Lucknow. Case Crime No. 196 of 2023 under Sections 41, 411, 413, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station – Aliganj, District – Ambedkar Nagar, in which the applicant has been granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 11.12.2023. The applicant has not named in the serial No. (i) to (iii) of the aforesaid listed case crimes. The photocopies of the first information report and order dated 11.12.2023 passed by this Hon'ble High Court are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That apart from above mentioned cases, as per best the best knowledge of the applicant, no other criminal history. That the informant has lodged the first information report on the false and incorrect facts and due to languishing in jail, the applicant as well as his entire family suffers from hardship without any fault on his part. That there were no any independent witnesses produced by the informant moreover if any witnesses is produced by the informant and victim they are interested witnesses. That it is also relevant to mention here that there is no case has been made out against the applicant as alleged against him and the applicant has never committed any offence as alleged. That the whole story was cooked and explained by the concerned police after knowing everything. That the informant is not the ocular witness and prosecution story as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural and unbelievable for a prudent man. That the co-accused filed a bail application bearing Crl. Misc. Case No. 14412 (B) of 2023 (Puneet Yadav Vs State of U.P.) before this Hon'ble High Court, which has been allowed by this Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 07.12.2023. The photocopy of the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the case of the applicant is similar to co-accused as the applicant has to be granted the parity of the co-accused as nothing has been done by the applicant as alleged against the applicant. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 37 of 2024 before Additional Sessions Judge, (POCSO-First), Ambedkar Nagar, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 05.02.2024. The certified copy of the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the applicant in jail since 02.09.2023 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false cases and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 493 of 2023 under Sections 379, 411 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station – Akbarpur, District – Ambedkar Nagar, during the pendency of the case. |
I, Sonu Sonkar aged about 28 years son of Shri Hridayram Sonkar resident of Sisauda, Mahamudpur, Semari, Police Station - Jaisinghpur, District - Sultanpur, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Vegetable seller, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the brother/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this or rejected by this . That brief fact of the case is that; on 02.09.2023 at 23.15 hours the first information report lodged by the informant Ram Ugrah Kushwaha against the applicant and 5 others bearing Case Crime No. 196 of 2023 under Sections 41, 411, 413, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Aliganj, District – Ambedkar Nagar. The certified/ photocopy of the first information report dated 02.09.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That the brief of the first information report, in a nutshell, is that the informant on the basis of the information arrested the three accused along with the applicant and also recovered the 8 motorcycles, and one mobile phone and lodged the first information report. That the applicant is innocent and has no concerns with the alleged recovery of the vehicles and he has been falsely implicated in the case crime for extraneous reasons by the concerned police to show his good work in the department. That so far as the recovery of the mobile phone, it was owned by the applicant and there is no any recovery was made from the possession of the applicant. That after the arrest of the applicant, under the life threat, the confessional statement was recorded by the concerned as per his with, while the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. That there were no public or independent witnesses produced by the police in the instant matter, as such whole prosecution story is false and based on a concocted story. That the applicant was working as a helper with the co-accused Puneet Yadav, on the truck, which was driven by Puneet Yadav for a long back. That the father of co-accused Puneet Yadav lodged the first information report against the informant of the police bearing Case Crime No 186 of 2022 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. at Police Station - Bewana, District - Ambedkar Nagar as such the co-accused has been arrested from his house along with the applicant when he was visited at the house of the co-accused. That being the friend of the co-accused, the applicant has been falsely named in the first information report whereas the applicant has no concern with the alleged recovery in any manner. The concerned police blindly believe the version of the informant without any substantial evidence. That on perusal of the first information report and the entire records, no case is made out against the applicant under Sections 41, 411, 413, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C.. That the first information report has been lodged against the applicant on the basis of the false, fabricated, and concocted story without any rhyme, reason, or basis whereas the applicant has not committed any offense. That after lodging the aforesaid case crime, the concerned police also named in the first information report dated 18.07.2023 as Case Crime 408 of 2023 under Sections 379 of I.P.C. and 197 of M. V. Act and in the first information report dated 23.08.2023 as Case Crime No. 493 of 2023 under Sections 379 of I.P.C. and 197 of M. V. Act while the applicant was not named in both first information reports. The photocopies of the first information report dated 18.07.2023 and 23.08.2023 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That the informant has lodged the first information report on the false and incorrect facts and due to languishing in jail, the applicant as well as his entire family suffers from hardship without any fault on his part. That there was no any independent witnesses produced by the informant moreover if any witness is produced by the informant and victim they are interested witnesses. That it is also relevant to mention here that there is no case is made out against the applicant as alleged against him and applicant has never committed any offence as alleged. That the whole story was cooked and explained by the concerned police after knowing everything. That the informant is not the ocular witness and prosecution story as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural and unbelievable for a prudent man. That the co-accused filed a bail application bearing Crl. Misc. Case No. 13414 (B) of 2023 (Puneet Yadav Vs State of U.P.) before this Hon'ble High Court, which has been allowed by this Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 09.11.2023. The photocopy of the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the case of the applicant is similar to co-accused as the applicant has to be granted the parity of the co-accused as nothing has been done by the applicant as alleged against the applicant. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1006 of 2023 before Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 21.11.2023. The free certified copy of the order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That the applicant in jail since 02.09.2023 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false cases and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 196 of 2023 under Sections 41, 411, 413, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station – Aliganj, District – Ambedkar Nagar, during the pendency of the case. |
I, Sonu Sonkar aged about 28 years son of Shri Hridayram Sonkar resident of Sisauda, Mahamudpur, Semari, Police Station - Jaisinghpur, District - Sultanpur, Education – Literate, Occupation – Vegetable seller, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the brother/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this or rejected by this . That brief fact of the case is that; the first information report lodged by the informant Shri Suresh Kumar Yadav against the unknown person bearing Case Crime No. 66 of 2023 lodged under Sections 379 of I.P.C. at Police Station - Vibhuti Khand, District - Lucknow. The certified/ photocopy of the first information report dated 09.02.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That the brief of the first information report, in a nutshell, is that., the motorcycle of the informant was stolen by an unknown person. That later on, on the basis of the false and incorrect information, the applicant was arrested along with two other accused and also recovered the 8 motorcycles, one mobile phone, and a first information report bearing Case Crime No. 196 of 2023 under Sections 41, 411, 413, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station – Aliganj, District – Ambedkar Nagar lodged against the applicant and others on 02.09.2023. That the applicant is innocent and has no concerns with the alleged recovery of the vehicles and he has been falsely implicated in the case crime for extraneous reasons by the concerned police to show his good work in the department. That so far as the recovery of the mobile phone, it was owned by the applicant and there is no any recovery was made from the possession of the applicant. That after the arrest of the applicant, his name was revealed in Case Crime No. 493 of 2023 and under the life threat, the confessional statement of the applicant was recorded/written by the investigating officer of the case crime on 09.09.2023 as per his wish, while the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant was working as a helper with the co-accused Puneet Yadav, on the truck, which was driven by Puneet Yadav for a long back. That the father of co-accused Puneet Yadav lodged the first information report against the informant of the police, bearing Case Crime No 186 of 2022 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. at Police Station - Bewana, District - Ambedkar Nagar as such the co-accused has been arrested from his house along with the applicant when he was visited at the house of the co-accused. That being the friend of the co-accused, the applicant has been falsely named in the first information report whereas the applicant has no concern with the alleged recovery in any manner. The concerned police blindly believe the version of the informant without any substantial evidence. That on perusal of the first information report and the entire records, no case is made out against the applicant under Sections 379 of I.P.C.. That after lodging the aforesaid case crime No. 196 of 2023, the concerned police also named in the first information reports, which are as under:- Case Crime No. 408 of 2023 under Sections 379 of I.P.C. and 197 of M. V. Act, 1988 registered at Police Station - Akabarpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar. Case Crime No. 186 of 2022 lodged under Sections 506, 504, 323, 452, 147 at Police Station - Bewana, District - Ambedkar Nagar. Case Crime No. 493 of 2023 under Sections 379 of I.P.C. and 197 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 registered at Police Station – Akbarpur, District – Ambedkar Nagar. Case Crime No. 196 of 2023 under Sections 41, 411, 413, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station – Aliganj, District – Ambedkar Nagar, in which the applicant has been granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 11.12.2023. The applicant has not named in the serial No. (i) to (iii) of the aforesaid listed case crimes. That it is also relevant to mention here that there is no case has been made out against the applicant as alleged against him and the applicant has never committed any offence as alleged. That the whole story was cooked and explained by the concerned police after knowing everything. That the applicant moved bail application concerned Magistrate, which has been rejected on .2024. The certified copy of the order dated .2024 passed by the court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the applicant in jail since 02.09.2023 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false cases and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail, in the interest of justice. |
I, Shyam Bahadur Singh aged about 56 years son of Shri Ram Kewal Singh resident of Village - Madhuban, Post - Bansgaon, Police Station - Gosainganj, District – Sultanpur, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the uncle/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The photo verification slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow of the deponent is affixed on the affidavit and his ID proof is enclosed with the affidavit. That the deponent further declared that the contents of the bail application have been explained by the counsel of the applicant in Hindi and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed as under. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief fact of the case is that a first information report was lodged against one known and some unknown persons on 14.10.2023 at 10.33 hours by Smt. Phoolkali wife of Suresh Nishad resident of Village - Madhuban, Post - Bansgaon, Police Station - Gosainganj, District – Sultanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) under Sections 302 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Gosainganj, District – Sultanpur regarding the murder of his father-in-law only on basis of wrong, false and presumption. The certified typed copy of the first information report dated 14.10.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 14.10.2023, the named accused along with unknown persons in the evening of 13.10.2023 went to the house of the informant and abused and given a life threat for the murder of the father-in-law of the informant. The informant further stated that the named accused and others had murdered her father-in-law. That the inquest report of the deceased body was prepared by the concerned police on 14.10.2023 in the presence of several villagers. That the body of the deceased was brought to the P. M. House, Sultanpur for conducting a post-mortem on 14.10.2023, where the post-mortem was conducted and the cause of the death was ascertained as ‘Hamarrage and Shock, due to ante-mortem injuries.”. The photo/ typed copy of the post-mortem report dated 14.10.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the version of the first information report is totally false and baseless and the same depends upon the concocted story as such nothing happened as alleged by the informant in her first informant report. Here it is relevant to mention that the applicant was not named in the first information report. That the investigating officer recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 14.10.2023 in which the informant almost repeated her first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 14.10.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the further statement of the informant was recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 15.10.2023, in which she changed her statement and named the applicant only on the basis of resumption & her imagination. The typed copy of the further statement of the informant dated 15.10.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That on the applicant was arrested by the concerned police on 20.10.2023 from his home but for showing his good work, his arrest was shown in a forged and fabricated arresting memo dated 20.10.2023. Another accused was also arrested by the concerned police on the same day. That thereafter, the confessional statements of the co-accused and applicant have been written/ prepared by the Investigating Officer on 20.10.2023 as per his wish and tried their best to collaborate with the alleged incident and witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. only to prove the offense against the applicant whereas the applicant has not committed any offense. The typed copy of the confessional statement of the applicant and co-accused dated 20.10.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the confessional statements of the other accused were recorded by the concerned police on 20.10.2023 under the life threat, in which he stated that the murder of the deceased was planned by all the accused as the named accused fought with the deceased on 13.10.2023. However, the applicant was reached at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. That the confessional statements of the arrested co-accused and applicant were recorded by the concerned police on 20.10.2023 under the life threat, in which the applicant said everything as narrated by the concerned police. That it is most humbly submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated by the informant in the instant case and there is no evidentiary value in the eye of the law relating to the confessional statements given by the arrested accused. That on the basis of such a story, which was narrated by the investigating officer himself, without proper investigation of the case crime, submitted the charge sheet against the applicant and another accused on 13.11.2023. That the real story is that the applicant has no concern with the alleged offense and he has been falsely implicated by the informant due to the village party bandi. That the informant’s family members are supporters of the present Village Pradhan and are close to each other while the applicant’s family opposed in last Village Pradhan election as such on the influence of the present Village Pradhan, the applicant is named in the present case crime. That there was a dispute between the informant’s family and the named accused of the case crime i.e. Monu Nishad and they fought with each other on 13.10.2023. That the applicant is a friend of Monu Nishad i.e. named accused of the case crime, due to which on instructions of the Village Pradhan, the applicant is named in the case crime. That neither the deceased has been murdered by the applicant nor he was planned for the murder of the deceased along with other accused but the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case crime. That due to malafide intention, the informant for her self-satisfaction on the instruction of political enmity of the applicant’s family lodged the first information report against the applicant, while he has not committed any offense as alleged against him. That the applicant has no concern with the murder of the deceased in any manner as alleged by the concerned police and the allegation against the applicant and also the prosecution story is totally against truth and is not reliable in manner. That neither the applicant has a motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself shows that no prima-facie offense under Sections 302, 34, 120-B of I.P.C. at Police Station – Gosainganj, District – Sultanpur is made out against the applicant. That the applicant is in jail since 20.10.2023 without committing any offense. That apart from the present case crime, the below-mentioned cases have been lodged against the applicant:- Case Crime No. 95 of 2023 lodged under Sections 354, 506 of I.P.C. and 8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station - Gosainganj, District - Sultanpur, in which the applicant has been acquitted by the court below vide order dated 11.12.2023. The photocopy of the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the learned court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. Case Crime No. 379 of 2020 lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506, 188, 269 of I.P.C. and 3 of The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 registered at Police Station - Gosainganj, District - Sultanpur. The applicant has no information regarding said case crime and till yet he has not received any notice or summon. That apart from the abovementioned cases, as per best knowledge of the applicant has no criminal history. That the applicant moved bail application No. 3631 of 2024 before the learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 08.12.2023. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will be never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 426 of 2023 under Sections 302, 34, 120-B of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Gosainganj, District – Sultanpur, in the interest of justice. |
I, Shivam Sardar Bhartiya aged about 28 years son of Shri Phulchand Bhartiya resident of Village - Pandeypur, Post - Sikrara, Alishahpur, District – Jaunpur, Education – Literate, Occupation – _________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the _________/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The photo verification slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow of the deponent is affixed on the affidavit and his ID proof is enclosed with the affidavit. That the deponent further declared that the contents of the bail application have been explained by the counsel of the applicant in Hindi and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed as under. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief fact of the case is that a first information report was lodged against the applicant and 10 other persons on 22.02.2024 at 15.37 hours by Renu daughter of Shri Vinod Kumar resident of Village - Gopalpur, Post - Mokalpur, Police Station - Akhand Nagar, District – Sultanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427, 302 of I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment, 2015) at Police Station – Akhand Nagar, District – Sultanpur regarding incident dated 21.02.2024. The certified typed copy of the first information report dated 22.02.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 21.02.2024, around 6.00 PM, one Jagdish parked his motorcycle in front of the informant’s house and when he was restrained he abused the informant’s family. Later on, around 06.30 PM, Jagdish came with other accused including the applicant along with weapons and after abusing by caste, beaten several persons due to which the informant and some others were injured. When one Surya Pratap was brought to the C.H.C., Akhand Nagar, he was declared dead. That the inquest report of the deceased body was prepared by the concerned police on 21.02.2024 in the presence of several villagers. That the body of the deceased was brought to the P. M. House, Sultanpur for conducting a post-mortem on 22.02.2024, where post-mortem was conducted and the cause of the death was ascertained as “Hamarrage and Shock, due to antemortem injuries.”. The photo/ typed copy of the post-mortem report dated 22.02.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the version of the first information report is totally false and baseless and the same depends upon the concocted story as such nothing happened as alleged by the informant in her first informant report. Here it is relevant to mention that the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged against him. That the alleged injured were brought to the C.H.C., Akhand Nagar, District - Sultanpur on 22.02.2024 for the initial treatment, in which the duration of the injury was noted as 1 or 2 days delay, which is not collaborated with the prosecution story. The photo/typed copy of the injury report of the injured dated 22.02.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the investigating officer recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 23.02.2024 in which the informant almost repeated her first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 22.02.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the statements of the witnesses of the alleged case crime were recorded by the concerned police, in which they have been given contradictive statements, which itself creates doubt upon the prosecution story. The typed copy of the statements of the witnesses of the case crime are being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That on the applicant was arrested by the concerned police on 24.02.2024 from his home but for showing his good work, his arrest was shown in a forged and fabricated arresting memo dated 24.02.2024. Two other accused were also arrested by the concerned police on the same day. That thereafter, the confessional statements of the co-accused and applicant have been written/ prepared by the Investigating Officer on 24.02.2024 as per his wish and tried their best to collaborate with the alleged incident and witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. only to prove the offense against the applicant whereas the applicant has not committed any offense. The typed copy of the confessional statement of the applicant and co-accused dated 24.02.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the confessional statements of the arrested co-accused and applicant were recorded by the concerned police on 24.02.2024 under the life threat, in which the applicant said everything as narrated by the concerned police. That it is most humbly submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated by the informant in the instant case and there is no evidentiary value in the eye of the law relating to the confessional statements given by the arrested accused. That on the pointing of others accused of the case crime, the alleged murder weapon was recorded by the concerned police and nothing has been recovered from the possession or pointing of the applicant. That the informant has not assigned any role to the applicant as she assigned to all accused, who were present at the time of the alleged incident. That on the basis of such a story, which was narrated by the investigating officer himself, without proper investigation of the case crime, submitted the charge sheet No. 52 of 2024 against the applicant under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427, 302 of I.P.C. and also against others under other sections also on 16.04.2024. The photocopy of the charge sheet submitted on 16.04.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the real story is that the applicant has no concern with the alleged offense and he has been falsely implicated by the informant due to the village party bandi. That the informant’s family members are supporters of the present Village Pradhan and are close to each other while the applicant’s family opposed him in the last Village Pradhan election as such on the influence of the present Village Pradhan, the applicant is named in the present case crime. That there was a dispute between the informant’s family and one Jagdish but being his well-wisher due to which on instructions of the Village Pradhan, the applicant is named in the case crime. That neither the deceased has been murdered by the applicant nor he was planned for the murder of the deceased along with other accused but the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case crime. That due to malafide intention, the informant for her self-satisfaction on the instruction of political enmity of the applicant’s family lodged the first information report against the applicant, while he has not committed any offense as alleged against him. That the applicant has no concern with the murder of the deceased in any manner as alleged by the concerned police and the allegation against the applicant and also the prosecution story is totally against truth and is not reliable in manner. That neither the applicant has a motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself shows that no prima-facie offense under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427, 302 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Akhand Nagar, District – Sultanpur is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has been in jail since 24.02.2024 without committing any offense. That apart from the present case crime, as per the best knowledge of the applicant, there is no any other criminal history against him. That when the applicant was arrested by the concerned in connection with the present case, he was ill and under treatment. But, there is no proper treatment given to the applicant in jail, due to which his life is in danger. That on 04.04.2024, an application was moved before the learned trial court for providing the proper and better treatment to the applicant as no proper treatment is being given to the applicant in jail but nothing has been done by the jail authority despite the learned court below directed him to provide medical facility to the applicant. The photo/typed copy of the applicant moved by the applicant before the learned trial court on 04.04.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That after passing long time, when the proper and better treatment has not been given to the applicant while the same is his fundamental right, then another applicant was moved on 07.05.2024 before the learned trial court for providing the proper and better treatment to the applicant as no proper treatment is being given to the applicant in jail but nothing has been done by the jail authority. The photo/typed copy of the applicant moved by the applicant before the learned trial court on 07.05.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That without the proper and better treatment, the life of the applicant is in danger and he would die in jail. That the applicant moved bail application No. 933 of 2024 before the learned Special Judge, S. C. & S. T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur, and his bail application have been rejected by the court concerned on 13.06.2024. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the learned court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will be never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 38 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427, 302 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Akhand Nagar, District – Sultanpur, in the interest of justice. |
I, Smt. Bhanmati aged about 39 years wife of Kukaee Nishad resident of Village - Baruie, Police Station - Gossainganj, District - Sultanpur, Qualification – Illiterate, Occupation – Housewife, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the mother/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and her photo verification slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association, Lucknow is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application on behalf of the applicant before the Hon'ble Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated in case crime No. 274 of 2023 lodged under Sections 498A, 323, 304B of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Lucknow on 21.06.2023 at 12.51 hours, against the applicant. The first information report is lodged by Shri Udayraj son of Late Ramdas resident of Village - Kuchhmuchh, Police Station - Domuhan, District - Sultanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) regarding an incident dated 20.06.2023. The certified copy of the first information report dated 21.06.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That the informant stated in his first information report that the marriage of the applicant and his daughter namely Karishma alias Reshma (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was solemnized around one year ago. The deceased was tortured for the dowry and in the night of 20.06.2023, the applicant murdered the deceased by hanging her. That according to the first information report, the deceased was hanged by the applicant in the night of 20.06.2023 but the the first information report was lodged around more than 36 hours later, after getting legal advice. That it is relevant to mention here that the informant planned and falsely implicated the applicant to get financial benefits. Thereafter on the basis of legal advice, the first information report has been lodged against the applicant on wrong and baseless facts. That the inquest report was prepared by the concerned police in the presence of the Panchan and also in the presence of the informant and other persons on 21.06.2023. That the body of the deceased was sent for the post-mortem on 21.06.2023 at District Hospital, Sultanpur wherein the post-mortem was done by doctors, and the cause of death was ascertained as ‘Anti-mortem hanging”. The photo/type copy of the post-mortem report dated 21.06.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That according to the post-mortem report, the time of death of the deceased was about one day back, which is also not collaborated with the prosecution story. That the statement of the informant was recorded by the concerned police under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 21.06.2023 and therein the informant repeated his first information report version and tried to develop his prosecution story to fill the loopholes of the prosecution story to send the applicant behind the bar merely being the husband of the deceased. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 21.06.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That on the basis of the false first information report, the applicant was arrested by the concerned police from his house on 22.06.2023. That the statement of the mother of the deceased was also recorded by the concerned police under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 03.07.2023 in which they repeated the version of the informant in their own words and tried their best to falsely implicate the applicant and his family members in said case crime. The photocopy of the statement of the mother of the deceased dated 03.07.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That the real fact of the case is that the marriage of the applicant and the deceased was solemnized without permission of the parents of the deceased i.e. their marriage was a love marriage, which was solemnized in a temple That nothing was demanded from the applicant from the informant and his family as dowry after the marriage as alleged against the applicant as the applicant and deceased solemnized their marriage against the WILL of the informant. That initially the relationship between the applicant and the deceased was good enough and there was no dispute between the applicant and the deceased. That later on, the applicant came to know that the deceased was a mentally ill lady and not able to make good decisions, even though she was a short-tempered lady. That on 20.06.2023, the deceased fought with the applicant and due to the aforementioned reason, the deceased was upset and committed suicide due to her own reasons. That here it is relevant to mention that the deceased was a short-tempered lady and she became more aggressive and also not in a position to make good decisions due to her anger as well mental illness and committed suicide. That the applicant immediately informed the concerned police and informant after said unfortunate incident. That the informant due to extraneous reasons lodged the first information against the applicant and his family members after getting legal advice just for his satisfaction while he is well aware that his daughter committed suicide for her own reasons due to her mental illness. That the trial has been initiated and on 09.11.2023, the informant was examined by the learned trial court as P.W. - 1, in which he himself stated that the applicant has never demanded dowry as the marriage of the applicant and deceased was a love-marriage and also stated that the deceased was mentally ill due to which she committed suicide. The photo/typed copy of the examination of the informant/P.W. - 1 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this Affidavit. That on 23.11.2023, the wife of the informant was examined by the learned trial court as P.W. - 2, in which she herself supported the version of the informant i.e. P.W. - 1 and stated that the applicant has never demanded dowry as the marriage of the applicant and deceased was a love-marriage and also stated that the deceased was mentally ill due to which she committed suicide. The photo/typed copy of the examination of the wife of the informant/P.W. - 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this Affidavit. That the applicant is being the husband of the deceased falsely implicated in the said case crime by the informant while the deceased committed suicide due to her mental illness which has been confirmed by the informant and his wife. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima facie offense is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which was given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That since the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That no involvement in the said case as alleged in the first information report, the applicant has no reason to murder the deceased. That there is no possibility of the applicant's conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is a common man of society. He has never been involved in any criminal activities ever. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offense. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant/accused is in jail being the husband of the deceased since 22.06.2023 without committing any crime. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That the applicant had applied for bail application bearing Bail Application No. 249 of 2024 but the same has been rejected by the Sessions Judge, Sultanpur on insufficient grounds vide order dated 21.02.2024. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 21.02.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 274 of 2023 under Sections 498A, 304B of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Lucknow, during the pendency of the case. |
I, Arvind Kumar aged about 28 years son of Shri Shiv ratan Chaudhary resident of Village – Mulihamau, Police Station – Jaisinghpur, District – Sultanpur, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the brother of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and her photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application pending before this or rejected by this . That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against applicant on 20.03.2024 by informant namely Suryapal Verma bearing Case Crime No. 130 of IPC under Sections 354A, 384, 506 of IPC at Police Station – Jaisinghpur, District – Sultanpur. The photocopy of the first information report dated 20.03.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That according the first information report the informant stated in his first information report that the applicant molest his daughter namely Neema (hereinafter referred to as ‘victim’) and also made a video. When the victim restrained for recording of the video then applicant demanded Rs. 1 lac for deleting the video or offered to marry with victim. The applicant further threaten to murder the informant. That the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded on 21.03.2024 by the concerned police, in which he almost repeated the contents of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.03.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That the statement of victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the concerned police, in which she stated that that she has love relation with the applicant from last 6 years. The applicant and victim fight several times but later on everything becomes normal. The victim further alleged that 7 months ago, the applicant made a video of the victim and for which he demanded Rs. 1 lac and on denial of giving money the applicant threaten viral the video. The typed copy of the statement of victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of victim is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the victim brought for medical where the victim and informant both have not given consent for medical. The denial from the medical by the informant and victim itself creates doubt upon the prosecution story. The photocopy of the denial of the medical of the victim is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded before the concerned court on 23.03.2024, in which she changed her statement of the 161 of Cr.P.C. and she admitted that she had love relation with the applicant from last 6 years and stated that 6 months ago, when they were in physical relation, the applicant recorded their video and after knowing the said fact, the victim broken the mobile of the applicant. The victim herself stated that she was given her consent for sexual relationship not for recording the video. The typed copy of the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 23.03.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That after recording the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the concerned police added the Sections 323, 376 of IPC, while nothing is against the applicant. That the real story of the case is in nutshell: the victim and applicant have fallen in love since long back and they met regularly with each other and they both have also sexually active. When this fact came to knowledge of the informant and his family then they came to applicant’s house and restraining the applicant and victim to continue their love relation. The informant also threatens the applicant to face consequences of having relation with his daughter. That the whole story cooked by the informant and their family members against the applicant and explained by the concerned police after knowing everything. That the informant is not the ocular witness and prosecution story as narrated therein highly improbable, improper and unnatural and unbelievable for prudent man. The victim herself admitted she has given consent for sexual relation. That without proper investigation of the case, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet No. 133 of 2024 under Sections 323, 376, 354A, 384, 506 of IPC on 15.04.2024 and the magistrate takes cognizance against the applicant. That a false story cooked up by the concerned police and the informant and his family members for obtaining the money form the state government, which is given to the rapped victim. That there is no any evidence against the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid case crime. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant and their family members in malafide intention while the victim went with the applicant with her own WILL and solemnized marriage with the applicant. That no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has not committed any offence, the victim is consenting party and the relation between both is mutual consent. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 2316 of 2024 before Additional Sessions Judge, FTC – 1, Sultanpur and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 15.09.2024. The free certified copy of the order dated 15.09.2024 passed by court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this application. That the applicant in jail since 24.03.2024 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That it is settled law that in every case of rape, the act of sexual intercourse must be forcible and without consent of the lady. Here in case, the victim having love relation and they were in sexual relation with her consent. That here it is relevant to submit in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as different Hon'ble High Courts of the country that the allegation of rape after having a long standing relation does not come under category of rape. The law is now well settled that even the statement recorded under Section 164 is not always to be taken as gospel truth and same needs to cross verified and checked from other sources. That here it is relevant to mention that the Section 375 of IPC related to the definition of the Rape. Here in present case, the essential element of the Rape i.e. is missing i.e. cons the applicant has physical relation with the victim with her consent. That the victim having love and affection and she had sexual relation with the applicant with her own free WILL and given consent for the same to the applicant, but suddenly under the pressure of the her father i.e. informant, she lodged the first information report against the applicant. That the applicant has not committed any crime none of the sections as mentioned in the first information report is attracted against the applicant. The statement of the victim herself evident that everything which happened was consensual and the entire story of alleged rape has been levelled by the victim under pressure of the informant. That the applicant promised to marry with the victim and does not broken his promise and still ready to marry with the victim and not committed any offense as alleged by her against the applicant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant and their family members in malafide intention while the victim went with the applicant with her own WILL and solemnized marriage with the applicant. That no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has not committed any offence, the victim is consenting party and the relation between both was on mutual consent. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 130 of 2024 under Sections 323, 376, 354A, 384, 506 of IPC registered at Police Station – Jaisinghpur, District – Sultanpur, in the interest of justice. |
I, Suraj Saroj aged about 26 years son of Shri Indra Pal Saroj resident of Village - Chiguda, Post - Sarai Shankar, Police Station - Kohdaur, Education – ___________, Occupation – ___________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the nephew/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The photo verification slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow of the deponent is affixed on the affidavit and his ID proof is enclosed with the affidavit. That the deponent further declared that the contents of the bail application have been explained by the counsel of the applicant in Hindi and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed as under. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief fact of the case is that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 15.01.2022 at 23.10 hours by Dhananjay Tiwari, District Manager, P.C.F., Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) under Section 409 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh. The certified and typed copy of the first information report dated 15.01.2022 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That the informant stated in his first information report that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 14.11.2021 and in the absence of the applicant, the godowns owned by the applicant were seized by the Committee constituted by the District Magistrate. Later on, when the godowns were opened by the Committee and the stock was compared with the stock register then it was found that 8842 bags of urea and 2 boxes (24 liters) of nano urea were short. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner and Assitant Registrar, Cooperative vide its order dated 14.01.2022 directed the informant to lodge the first information report against the applicant. That here it is relevant to mention that the allegations levelled against the applicant are false and incorrect as the applicant has not been involved in an offense alleged by the informant. That the informant lodged the first information report on the basis of a false and incorrect fact and the same depends upon the concocted story as such nothing happened as alleged by him in his first informant report. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 15.01.2022 in which the informant repeated his first information report version. However, the applicant has not committed any offense as stated by him. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 15.01.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the applicant was in jail in connection with Case Crime No. 931 of 2021 under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. related to the Police Station – Kotwali City, District – Pratapgarh since 11.01.2022 as such the confessional statement of the applicant has been written/ prepared by the Investigating Officer on 27.01.2022 as per his wish and tried their best to collaborate with the alleged incident and witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. only to prove the offense against the applicant whereas the applicant has not committed any offense. The typed copy of the confessional statement of the applicant dated 2777.01.2022 is being annexed as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That it is most humbly submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated by the informant in the instant case and there is no evidentiary value in the eye of the law relating to the confessional statements given by the arrested accused. That the Investigating Officer recorded the further statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 31.01.2022 in which the informant improved facts to build his case against the applicant by collaborating his statements with other witnesses and documents, which were prepared against the applicant while the applicant has not committed any offense as stated in the first information report and statements of the informant. The typed copy of the further statement of the informant dated 31.01.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the Investigating Officer recorded the second further statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 24.11.2022 in which the informant again tried to improve his prosecution story and tried to fill the loopholes of allegations, which are so far from the facts and truth. The typed copy of the second further statement of the informant dated 24.11.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That on the basis of such a story, which was narrated by the investigating officer himself, without proper investigation of the case crime, submitted the charge sheet against the applicant bearing charge sheet No. 140 of 2022 under Sections 409. 120-B of I.P.C. on 20.04.2022. The photocopy of the charge sheet dated 20.04.2022 is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the real story is that the applicant has no concern with the alleged offense and he has been falsely implicated by the informant due to false and incorrect facts merely on presumption. That the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case crime by the informant. Earlier another first information report dated 14.11.2021 bearing Case Crime No. 931 of 2021 under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. related to the Police Station – Kotwali City, District – Pratapgarh lodged against the applicant. That when the names of higher officials were about to come to light in the said matter thereafter in a planned manner, the applicant was falsely implicated in the said case even though he had not committed any crime as alleged against him. That the applicant has no concern with the missing urea in any manner as alleged by the informant as well as concerned police and the allegation against the applicant and also the prosecution story is totally against truth and is not reliable in manner. That the mother of the applicant is a paralyzed old lady and alone at home and no one to take care of her and also she is not able to go for her treatment, which is going on at District Prayagraj. The photocopy of the medical records of the mother of the applicant is being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the children of the applicant are too small and their life and career will be ruined if the applicant languishes in jail, without committing any offense. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself shows that no prima-facie offense under Section 409 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has been in jail since 11.01.2022 without committing any offense. That till date the charges have not been framed against the applicant or other accused while the applicant is in jail since 11.01.2022 and there is no chance for framing of charges. That prior to the instant case crime, the applicant was also falsely implicated in another Case Crime No. 931 of 2021 under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. related to the Police Station – Kotwali City, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court on 28.08.2024. The photocopy of the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That the four co-accused of the case crime namely Rajesh Kumar Patel, Dinesh Kumar Maurya, Dinesh Kumar Saroj, and Sanjeev Kumar have been granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court respectively on 11.07.2022, 18.10.2022, 07.12.2022 and 20.12.2022. The photocopies of the bail orders granted to the co-accused of the case crime are being annexed as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That apart from the abovementioned case, as per the best knowledge of the applicant, he has no criminal history. That the applicant moved bail application No. 3631 of 2024 before the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 06.05.2022. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will be never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 39 of 2022 under Section 409 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice. |
I, Rakesh Yadav aged about 36 years son of Shri Kanhaiyalal resident of Ramganj, Ramganj, District - Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – _________, deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:- That the deponent is the brother/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by him and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The photograph of the deponent is affixed on the affidavit and his ID proof is enclosed with the affidavit. That it is relevant to mention here that the present application of bail is still pending before this Hon'ble High Court for consideration since its filing. That the applicant is in jail around 9 months without committing any offense as such the father of the applicant is in deep mental trauma and suffering from acute depression. That the father of the applicant also had heart disease and recently he was admitted to hospital after a major heart attack, if the applicant is not released on bail, the father of the applicant would die. That due to the non-disposal of the instant bail application, which is liable to be allowed in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant and family members are suffering. That due to the non-disposal of the bail application filed by the applicant, the applicant is suffering irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in any manner as the opposite party No. 2 falsely implicates the applicant in said case crime. That due to the pendency of the aforesaid bail, the applicant is also suffering a lot as mentally and physically. That for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to enlarge the applicant on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 206 of 2022 under sections 354 (Kha), 504, 506, IPC and 7/8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 67 of Information Technology Act, registered at Police Station - Aaspur Devsara, District Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice. |
I, Ramesh Yadav aged about 61 years son of Shri Ram Daur Yadav resident of Village - Aspur Deosara, Police Station – Aspur Deosara, District – Pratapgarh, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – _____________, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father/pairokar of the applicant and doing pairvi of the applicant in the above-noted case and duly authorized by him for filing the instant application before the Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo verification slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and a photocopy of the ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to him as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application on behalf of the applicant before this Hon'ble High Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated in case crime No. 206 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C., 3, 9 of The Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations Act, 1998 and 66-D of The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 at Police Station – Husainganj, District – Lucknow on 13.12.2022 at 23.50 hours against the applicant/accused and 10 other named persons. The first information report is lodged by Hafijur Rahman, then Superintendent of Police, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’). The certified/type copy of the first information report dated 13.12.2022 lodged by the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That according to the First Information Report, the prosecution's story is in a nutshell, that one candidate for Direct Recruitment for the post of Sub Inspector, General Constable and Equivalent Examination, 2020, which was conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow namely Ritesh Kumar appeared on 13.12.2022 for the verification of the documents in compliance with the order dated 16.05.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court. During verification, he informed the authorities that his documents had been kept by one person, who took Rs. 15 lakhs for clearing the examination, in which the applicant helped. On the basis of the statement of another person, without verifying the facts, the first information report has been lodged by the informant. That the applicant is a common man of society and has no concern with the alleged allegation without any reason and falsely implicate in said case crime. That the general allegations have been made by the informant and no any specific role assigned to the applicant. That the applicant was himself, the candidate in said examination, in which he was declared unsuccessful by the Examination Board. The photocopy of the admit card of the applicant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the statement of the informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 14.12.2022 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he almost repeated his version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 14.12.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That one accused of the case crime was arrested by the concerned police on 13.12.2022, whose statement was recorded by the concerned police on 14.12.2022, who just said that the applicant and another person helped him but which manner the same was not stated by him. That on pointing out another accused Ritesh Kumar, two other accused have been arrested by the concerned police, whose statements were recorded by the concerned police on 14.12.2022 but they have not named the applicant, while another accused said they all are working together. The typed copies of the statement of two arrested accused dated 14.12.2022 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this Affidavit. That nothing was recorded by the applicant by the concerned police at any point in time and nothing was found anything against the applicant except the statement of the accused Ritesh Kumar. That the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against the three accused including Ritesh Kumar on 04.03.2023 and the investigation was transferred to the STF and the same is going on. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has no concerns about any type of the act as mentioned in the first information report. The informant falsely implicates the applicant in said case. That it is most relevant to mention here that the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged by the informant in his first information report dated 13.12.2022. That another accused of the case crime namely Ritesh Kumar has relations with the applicant as the applicant’s uncle’s marriage was solemnized in the house of Ritesh Kumar’s family. That during the illness of Ritesh Kumar's family member, they borrowed some money from the uncle of the applicant, who gave the money to them after taking some money from the applicant’s father, who is retired from the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. That at the time of the return of money, Ritesh Kumar's family said the applicant to receive the money in his account as Ritesh Kumar sent the money through UPI mode, as a result of same, some money was received by the applicant from the accused Ritesh on various dates, which are not associated with the crime in question but the concerned police tried to connect the same with the crime in question. That the informant has no any independent witnesses of the alleged recovery because the applicant has not committed any offense. That till date the concerned police have not produced any sufficient evidence against the applicant to prove the involvement of the applicant in the case crime. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself shows that no prima-facie offence under 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C., 3, 9 of The Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations Act, 1998 and 66-D of The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 is made out against the applicant. That the promptness of the Investigation Officer of the case crime itself shows that he was working for the informant for extraneous reasons. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That here it is relevant to mention here that the applicant has no concerns with the alleged incident but the concerned police arrested the applicant and connected him with the said offense for extraneous reasons. That apart from the above as per the best knowledge of the applicant, no other criminal history against the applicant. That Ritesh Kumar, who named the applicant along with another accused namely Brijeet alias B. K. Singh have been granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 11.05.2023 & 24.07.2023. The photocopies of the orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court are annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That there is no role assigned by any accused of the case crime even they have been enlarged on bail and the allegations against the applicant is similar to the other accused as such his case is fit for granting the bail on parity. That the applicant had applied for bail before bearing No. 4685 of 2024 the Special Judge, P.C. Act - V, Lucknow but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 25.06.2024. The free copy of the bail rejection order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the learned court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report by the informant and has no concern. That the applicant has been in jail since 02.06.2024 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That there is no possibility of the applicant's conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is the common man of the society. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 206 of 2022 lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C., 3, 9 of The Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations Act, 1998 and 66-D of The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 at Police Station – Husainganj, District – Lucknow, during the pendency of the trial, in the interest of justice. |
I, Ramesh Yadav aged about 61 years son of Shri Ram Daur Yadav resident of Village - Aspur Deosara, Police Station – Husainganj, District – Lucknow, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – _____________, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father/pairokar of the applicant and doing pairvi of the applicant in the above-noted case and duly authorized by him for filing the instant application before the Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo verification slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and a photocopy of the ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to him as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application on behalf of the applicant before this Hon'ble High Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated in case crime No. 206 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C., 3, 9 of The Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations Act, 1998 and 66-D of The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 at Police Station – Husainganj, District – Lucknow on 13.12.2022 at 23.50 hours against the applicant/accused and 10 other named persons. The first information report is lodged by Hafijur Rahman, then Superintendent of Police, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’). The certified/type copy of the first information report dated 13.12.2022 lodged by the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That according to the First Information Report, the prosecution's story is in a nutshell, that one candidate for Direct Recruitment for the post of Sub Inspector, General Constable and Equivalent Examination, 2020, which was conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow namely Ritesh Kumar appeared on 13.12.2022 for the verification of the documents in compliance with the order dated 16.05.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court. During verification, he informed the authorities that his documents had been kept by one person, who took Rs. 15 lakhs for clearing the examination, in which the applicant helped. On the basis of the statement of another person, without verifying the facts, the first information report has been lodged by the informant. That the applicant is a common man of society and has no concern with the alleged allegation without any reason and falsely implicate in said case crime. That the general allegations have been made by the informant and no any specific role assigned to the applicant. That the applicant was himself, the candidate in said examination, in which he was declared unsuccessful by the Examination Board. The photocopy of the admit card of the applicant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the statement of the informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 14.12.2022 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he almost repeated his version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 14.12.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That one accused of the case crime was arrested by the concerned police on 13.12.2022, whose statement was recorded by the concerned police on 14.12.2022, who just said that the applicant and another person helped him but which manner the same was not stated by him. The typed copy of the recovery memo dated 14.12.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this Affidavit. That on pointing out another accused Ritesh Kumar, two other accused have been arrested by the concerned police, whose statements were recorded by the concerned police on 14.12.2022 but they have not named the applicant, while another accused said they all are working together. The typed copies of the statement of two arrested accused dated 14.12.2022 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this Affidavit. That nothing was recorded by the applicant by the concerned police at any point in time and nothing was found anything against the applicant except the statement of the accused Ritesh Kumar. That the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against the three accused including Ritesh Kumar on 04.03.2023 and the investigation was transferred to the STF and the same is going on. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has no concerns about any type of the act as mentioned in the first information report. The informant falsely implicates the applicant in said case. That it is most relevant to mention here that the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged by the informant in his first information report dated 13.12.2022. That another accused of the case crime namely Ritesh Kumar has relations with the applicant as the applicant’s uncle’s marriage was solemnized in the house of Ritesh Kumar’s family. That during the illness of Ritesh Kumar's family member, they borrowed some money from the uncle of the applicant, who gave the money to them after taking some money from the applicant’s father, who is retired from the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. That at the time of the return of money, Ritesh Kumar's family said the applicant to receive the money in his account as Ritesh Kumar sent the money through UPI mode, as a result of same, some money was received by the applicant from the accused Ritesh on various dates, which are not associated with the crime in question but the concerned police tried to connect the same with the crime in question. That the informant has no any independent witnesses of the alleged recovery because the applicant has not committed any offense. That till date the concerned police have not produced any sufficient evidence against the applicant to prove the involvement of the applicant in the case crime. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself shows that no prima-facie offence under 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C., 3, 9 of The Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations Act, 1998 and 66-D of The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 is made out against the applicant. That the promptness of the Investigation Officer of the case crime itself shows that he was working for the informant for extraneous reasons. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That here it is relevant to mention here that the applicant has no concerns with the alleged incident but the concerned police arrested the applicant and connected him with the said offense for extraneous reasons. That apart from the above as per the best knowledge of the applicant, no other criminal history against the applicant. That the applicant had applied for bail before bearing No. 4685 of 2024 the Special Judge, P.C. Act - V, Lucknow but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 25.06.2024. The free copy of the bail rejection order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the learned court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report by the informant and has no concern. That the applicant has been in jail since 02.06.2024 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That there is no possibility of the applicant's conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is the common man of the society. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 206 of 2022 lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C., 3, 9 of The Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations Act, 1998 and 66-D of The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 at Police Station – Husainganj, District – Lucknow, during the pendency of the trial, in the interest of justice. |
I, Rohit Singh aged about 34 years son of Shri Ran Vijay Singh resident of Village - Malak, Kandharpur, Police Station - Kohndaur, District - Pratapgarh, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Private Job, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the cousin brother/pairokar of the applicant and doing pairvi of the applicant in the above-noted case and duly authorized by him for filing the instant application before the Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo verification slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and a photocopy of the ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to him as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application on behalf of the applicant before this Hon'ble High Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated in case crime No. 250 of 2024 under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Antu, District – Pratapgarh on 21.05.2024 at 13.22 hours against the applicant/accused and 2 other named persons. The first information report is lodged by Anil Kumar Singh son of Late Awadhesh Bahadur Singh resident of Village - Shivrajpur Dihwa, Police Station - Antu, District - Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’). The certified/type copy of the first information report dated 21.05.2024 lodged by the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this Affidavit. That according to the First Information Report, the prosecution's story is in a nutshell, that due to a land dispute, the applicant and others have beaten the brother of the informant, when the applicant and others were stopped digging a pit. The informant further alleged that the applicant and others also beat another person and abused them. That the alleged injured was brought to the District Hospital, Pratapgarh on 21.05.2024 for initial treatment. The medical report is collobrated with the prosecution story. The photo/typed copy of the medical report dated 21.05.2024 of the injured is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this Affidavit. That the applicant is a common man of society and has no concern with the alleged allegation without any reason and falsely implicate in said case crime. That the general allegations have been made by the informant and no any specific role assigned to the applicant. That the statement of the informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 21.05.2024 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he almost repeated his version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 21.05.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this Affidavit. That the Investigating Officer of the case crime recorded some statements of the eyewitnesses, all of whom were the family members of the informant, who had given false statements to send the applicant behind bars. That one accused of the case crime was arrested by the concerned police on 22.05.2024, whose statement was recorded by the concerned police on 22.05.2024 and Gahdala recovered on pointing of him. That the applicant was arrested on 28.06.2024 by the concerned police. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the doctor on 21.07.2024 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he stated that the injured sustained serious injuries on 1. Head, 2. Face, 3. Upside of the Knee and 4. Left thigh while as per injury report, the injured sustained only three injuries. The typed copy of the statement of the doctor dated 21.07.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this Affidavit. That on the basis of the statement of the doctor, the Investigating Officer added Section 325 of I.P.C. in said case crime on 21.07.2024. That on the basis of such a story, which was narrated by the investigating officer himself, without proper investigation of the case crime, submitted the charge sheet against the applicant bearing charge sheet No. 406 of 2024 on 26.07.2024 under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506, 325 of I.P.C.. That nothing was recorded by the applicant by the concerned police at any point in time and nothing was found anything against the applicant. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has no concerns with the alleged incident as mentioned in the first information report. The informant falsely implicates the applicant in said case. That it is most relevant to mention here that there are land disputes between the applicant’s family and the informant’s bhabhi (sister-in-law) namely Smt. Asha Singh. That the civil suit pending before the Additional Civil Judge, (S.D.), Room No. 15, Pratapgarh bearing Original Suit No. 1600576 of 2008 (Rajesh Singh Vs Smt. Asha Singh and others, which was to be decided on the basis of the mutual agreement of both parties. That but prior to the final decision of the suit, the informant lodged the first information report against the applicant and others for building pressure to change the terms of the compromise. However, the suit was finally decided on 23.05.2024 on the basis of the compromise. The photocopy of the order dated 23.05.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this Affidavit. That after compromise one family member namely Rajesh Singh was digging pits to plant the trees at that time the injured i.e. Arvind Kumar Singh started abusing Rajesh Singh and started manhandling, meantime he was slipped into the pit, where and sustained injuries from the iron rod. That thereafter, the informant in a well-planned manner lodged a first informant report on the basis of the wrong and incorrect facts. That till date the concerned police have not produced any sufficient evidence against the applicant to prove the involvement of the applicant in the case crime. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself shows that no prima-facie offence under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mitesh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka and others (2022) 14 SCC 572, held that “Moreover, this Court has at innumerable instances expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal colour to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety”. That in another case of Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706, Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the prosecution is malafide, untenable and solely intended to harass the accused, hence the case of the petitioners is fit for quashing the first information report lodged against them. That on 18.04.2024, this Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 5948 of 2024 (Sone Lal and 5 others Vs State of U.P. and 3 others), passed a detailed order, in which framed certain guidelines for lodging the First Information Report, in which the civil dispute or dispute arising out of different types of agreements or partnership deed etc. That Para No. 15 (i) of the said order, is relevant by which this Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad directed as under: “Where an F.I.R. is sought to be registered under Sections 406, 408, 420 / 467, 471 I.P.C. etc., wherein, on the face of it, it appears that there is a commercial dispute or a civil dispute or a dispute arising out of different types of agreements or partnership deeds, etc. before registration of the F.I.R., an opinion will be taken in all such cases from the concerned District Government Counsel / Deputy District Government Counsel in their respective Districts and only after obtaining a report, the F.I.R. will be registered. Such opinion will be reproduced in concluding part of F.I.R.”. The said list is not exhaustive but several other cases that directly come under a civil nature are also barred from being given criminal color and lodging of a first information report. That this Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad also stated in Para No. 15(iv) that “It is made clear that in all cases where first information reports, which are to be registered after 01.05.2024, if no such legal opinion is taken by the concerned police official before registration of the F.I.R., as per (i) and (ii) above they may be liable to contempt proceedings.” That here in the present case, the case is purely civil in nature and related to the land dispute, despite that the first information report has been lodged against the applicant in contravention to the order passed by this Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad, as such the concerned police officer is liable to be punished for the contempt proceedings for not complying the order dated 18.04.2024. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That apart from the above as per the best knowledge of the applicant, no other criminal history against the applicant. That the applicant had applied for bail before bearing No. 1939 of 2024 and 2529 of 2024 before the Additional District & Session Judge, Room No. 2, Pratapgarh but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 08.08.2024 and 03.09.2024 respectively. The free copy of the bail rejection order dated 08.08.2024 & 03.09.2024 passed by the learned court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report by the informant and has no concern. That the applicant has been in jail since 28.06.2024 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 250 of 2024 lodged under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Antu, District – Pratapgarh, during the pendency of the trial, in the interest of justice. |
I, Rohit Singh aged about 34 years son of Shri Ran Vijay Singh resident of Village - Malak, Kandharpur, Police Station - Kohndaur, District - Pratapgarh, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Private Job, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the nephew/pairokar of the applicant and doing pairvi of the applicant in the above-noted case and duly authorized by him for filing the instant application before the Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo verification slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and a photocopy of the ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to him as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application on behalf of the applicant before this Hon'ble High Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated in case crime No. 250 of 2024 under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Antu, District – Pratapgarh on 21.05.2024 at 13.22 hours against the applicant/accused and 2 other named persons. The first information report is lodged by Anil Kumar Singh son of Late Awadhesh Bahadur Singh resident of Village - Shivrajpur Dihwa, Police Station - Antu, District - Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’). The certified/type copy of the first information report dated 21.05.2024 lodged by the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this Affidavit. That according to the First Information Report, the prosecution's story is in a nutshell, that due to a land dispute, the applicant and others have beaten the brother of the informant, when the applicant and others were stopped digging a pit. The informant further alleged that the applicant and others also beat another person and abused them. That the alleged injured was brought to the District Hospital, Pratapgarh on 21.05.2024 for initial treatment. The medical report is collobrated with the prosecution story. The photo/typed copy of the medical report dated 21.05.2024 of the injured is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this Affidavit. That the applicant is a common man of society and has no concern with the alleged allegation without any reason and falsely implicate in said case crime. That the general allegations have been made by the informant and no any specific role assigned to the applicant. That the statement of the informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 21.05.2024 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he almost repeated his version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 21.05.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this Affidavit. That on 22.05.2024, the concerned police arrested the applicant from his house and also mentioned in arresting-cum-recovery memo that the Gahdala recovered on pointing of him. That the confessional statement of the applicant was written/ prepared by the Investigating Officer on 22.05.2024 as per his wish and as narrated by the informant, by which he tried his best to collaborate with the alleged incident and statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. only to prove the offense against the applicant whereas the applicant has not committed any offense. The typed copy of the confessional statement of the applicant dated 22.05.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That it is most humbly submitted that the applicant is innocent and she has falsely been implicated by the informant in the instant case and there is no evidentiary value in the eye of the law relating to the confessional statement given by the applicant. That the Investigating Officer of the case crime recorded some statements of the eyewitnesses on 27.05.204, all of whom were the family members of the informant, who had given false statements to send the applicant behind bars. The typed copies of the statements of the eyewitnesses dated 27.05.2024 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this Affidavit. That on 27.06.2024, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the injured Anil Kumar Singh, in which he repeated the version of the first information report in his own words. The typed copy of the statement of the injured dated 27.06.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this Affidavit. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the doctor on 21.07.2024 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he stated that the injured sustained serious injuries on 1. Head, 2. Face, 3. Upside of the Knee and 4. Left thigh while as per injury report, the injured sustained only three injuries. The typed copy of the statement of the doctor dated 21.07.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this Affidavit. That on the basis of the statement of the doctor, the Investigating Officer added Section 325 of I.P.C. in said case crime on 21.07.2024. That on the basis of such a story, which was narrated by the investigating officer himself, without proper investigation of the case crime, submitted the charge sheet against the applicant bearing charge sheet No. 406 of 2024 on 26.07.2024 under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506, 325 of I.P.C.. That nothing was recorded by the applicant by the concerned police at any point in time and nothing was found anything against the applicant. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has no concerns with the alleged incident as mentioned in the first information report. The informant falsely implicates the applicant in said case. That it is most relevant to mention here that there are land disputes between the applicant’s family and the informant’s bhabhi (sister-in-law) namely Smt. Asha Singh. That the civil suit pending before the Additional Civil Judge, (S.D.), Room No. 15, Pratapgarh bearing Original Suit No. 1600576 of 2008 (Rajesh Singh Vs Smt. Asha Singh and others, which was to be decided on the basis of the mutual agreement of both parties. That but prior to the final decision of the suit, the informant lodged the first information report against the applicant and others for building pressure to change the terms of the compromise. However, the suit was finally decided on 23.05.2024 on the basis of the compromise. The photocopy of the order dated 23.05.2024 passed by the court concerned is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 08 to this Affidavit. That after compromise one family member namely Rajesh Singh was digging pits to plant the trees at that time the injured i.e. Arvind Kumar Singh started abusing Rajesh Singh and started manhandling, meantime he was slipped into the pit, where and sustained injuries from the iron rod. That thereafter, the informant in a well-planned manner lodged a first informant report on the basis of the wrong and incorrect facts. That till date the concerned police have not produced any sufficient evidence against the applicant to prove the involvement of the applicant in the case crime. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself shows that no prima-facie offence under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mitesh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka and others (2022) 14 SCC 572, held that “Moreover, this Court has at innumerable instances expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal colour to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety”. That in another case of Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706, Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the prosecution is malafide, untenable and solely intended to harass the accused, hence the case of the petitioners is fit for quashing the first information report lodged against them. That on 18.04.2024, this Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 5948 of 2024 (Sone Lal and 5 others Vs State of U.P. and 3 others), passed a detailed order, in which framed certain guidelines for lodging the First Information Report, in which the civil dispute or dispute arising out of different types of agreements or partnership deed etc. That Para No. 15 (i) of the said order, is relevant by which this Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad directed as under: “Where an F.I.R. is sought to be registered under Sections 406, 408, 420 / 467, 471 I.P.C. etc., wherein, on the face of it, it appears that there is a commercial dispute or a civil dispute or a dispute arising out of different types of agreements or partnership deeds, etc. before registration of the F.I.R., an opinion will be taken in all such cases from the concerned District Government Counsel / Deputy District Government Counsel in their respective Districts and only after obtaining a report, the F.I.R. will be registered. Such opinion will be reproduced in concluding part of F.I.R.”. The said list is not exhaustive but several other cases that directly come under a civil nature are also barred from being given criminal color and lodging of a first information report. That this Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad also stated in Para No. 15(iv) that “It is made clear that in all cases where first information reports, which are to be registered after 01.05.2024, if no such legal opinion is taken by the concerned police official before registration of the F.I.R., as per (i) and (ii) above they may be liable to contempt proceedings.” That here in the present case, the case is purely civil in nature and related to the land dispute, despite that the first information report has been lodged against the applicant in contravention to the order passed by this Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad, as such the concerned police officer is liable to be punished for the contempt proceedings for not complying the order dated 18.04.2024. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That apart from the above as per the best knowledge of the applicant, no other criminal history against the applicant. That the applicant had applied for bail before bearing No. 2379 of 2024 before the Additional District & Session Judge, Room No. 2, Pratapgarh but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 23.09.2024. The free copy of the bail rejection order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the learned court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report by the informant and has no concern. That the applicant has been in jail since 22.05.2024 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 250 of 2024 lodged under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Antu, District – Pratapgarh, during the pendency of the trial, in the interest of justice. |
I, Vijay Kumar aged about 30 years, son of Shri Radheyshyam Shukla, resident of Village - Wakar Ali Ka purwa, Hamelet of Bishariya, Police Station - Hathigawan, District- Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is brother of the applicant and doing pairvi in the above noted case and also duly authorized by him. The deponent further declares that the contents of this instant application explained by the counsel of the applicant as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That this is third bail application of the applicant. The First bail application of the applicant bearing No. 2913 (B) of 2015 has been rejected by Hon’ble Shri Mahendra Dayal “J” on 23.09.2016 and Second Bail application beraing No. 10291 (B) of 2018 has also been rejected by Hon'ble Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh “J” on 04.12.2018. That the applicant in jail on the basis of first information report lodged by Shiv Bhawan Tiwari son of Late Ram Abhilash Tiwari resident of Village – Sariyawan, Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) on 31.05.2014 at 10.30 hours against the six persons including the applicant vide case crime No. 117 of 2014 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh. The photo/ typed copy of the first information report dated 31.05.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That it is relevant to mention that the certified copy of the first information report dated 31.05.2014 is already on record as same has been filed with the first bail application moved by the applicant. That according to the prosecution story, it was alleged in the first information report dated 31.05.2014 by the informant that the informant solemnized the marriage of his daughter namely Sadhna (hereinafter referred as to ‘deceased’) with the applicant with lot of dowry. But the all accused of the case crime demanded Rs. 1 Lacs and LCD TV from the daughter of the informant and for same they were tortured her. In night of the 30/31.05.2014, the accused have brutally beaten the deceased due to which has died. That as a matter of fact the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated by the Informant due to malafide intension of the Informant and on the ill advice of his relative. That as a matter of fact the applicant or his family had never demanded any dowry nor had tortured the deceased for the alleged demand of dowry. That the applicant never demanded any dowry from the deceased or her family members and after this unfortunate incident’s information was given to the family members of the deceased as well as Informant and his other relatives were present at the time of preparing inquest by the concerned police. The photo/ typed copy of the inquest report dated 31.05.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That the post mortem was conducted on 01.06.2014 about 03.00 PM at District Hospital, Pratapgarh by the concenred docutor and as per post mortem report the casue of death is shock and come due to ante mortem injuries. The photo/ typed copy of the post mortem report is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That the statement of the several independent witnesses were recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which they stated that the deceased committed suicide at railway track. That without proper investigation of the case crime, the investigating officer of the case crime, the charge sheet was filed against the accused applicant and Radhe Shyam bearing charge sheet No. 15 of 2014 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on 25.08.2014. The first information report was lodged against the 6 persons and only 2 persons including the applicant charge sheeted. The photo/ typed copy of the charge sheet dated 25.08.2014 filed by the concerned police is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That it is further relevant to mention that the concerned police prepared 2 site plans fisrt is related to house of the applicant, where the applicant his family members brought the dead body of the deceased. The photo/typed copy of the site plan - I prepared by the investigating officer is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the second site plan is related to railway track, where the deceased committed suicide. The investigation officer found several stones at incident place and blood stains from the incident place, which is fully supported the version of the applicant and fully against the prosecution story. The photo/typed copy of the site plan - II prepared by the investigating officer is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That on perusal of the charge sheet, it is clear that the informant has named the accused persons in alleged case crime, in a very casual manner and without ascertaining the facts. That prior to the date of incident neither deceased nor informant has filed any complaint or police report was never filed either with the police or any other competent authority for any cruelty or demand of dowry, which creates doubts upon the prosecution story. That there is no credible evidence on record, which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed this crime in question and the evidence available on record, itself shows that no prima facie offence under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is made out against the applicant. That the applicant is in jail since 02.06.2014 without any of his fault. That no crime made out against the applicant as alleged in the impugned first information report lodged by the informant. That neither any evidence was found against the applicant nor has any motive been assigned to the applicant in the present case. That the applicant has no criminal history at all except to this present case. That entire allegations as alleged in the first information report is false and frivolous. There was neither any demand of dowry nor the deceased was harassed in any manner. That the real fact of the case is that the deceased was suffering from several disease prior to the marriage and after marriage with the applicant, she has been provided the medical treatment by the applicant as per his financial position. The informant concealed the said fact with the applicant and his family prior to marriage. That on 11.01.2014, the deceased Sadhna Shukla has delivered one baby namely Yash Shukla but the son was also very much ill. The applicant has also provided the medical treatment to the mother and son to his label best. That the deceased requested his father i.e. the informant to help in treatment of her son but the informant denied very roudly due to which the deceased was also tensionised. That by time, the sadness of the deceased was increased day by day due illness of her son and she gone in deep depression. On mid-night of the 30/21.05.2014m when the all family members were sleeping at home and deceased leave the house and went to nearby the railway track and she hit herself with train and died due to several deadly injuries. That the informant was informed immediately after said unfortunate incident but the informant due to extraneous reasons lodged the first information against the applicant and his family members. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of case and there is no an evidence against the applicant/accused. That the family members of the applicant are common persons and hardly earn sufficient for their livelihood at this stage allegation regarding demand of one lac rupee, LCD TV are not sustained. That, the applicant has moved his bail application before Sessions Judge Pratapgarh and which has rejected on 15.09.2014 by the Session Judge, Pratapgarh. The certified copy of bail rejection order passed by the court concerned has already filed along with first bail application before this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant has filed First bail application bearing No. 2913 (B) of 2015 has been rejected by Hon’ble Shri Mahendra Dayal “J” on 23.09.2016 and Second Bail application beraing No. 10291 (B) of 2018 has also been rejected by Hon'ble Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh “J” on 04.12.2018. The photocopy of the order dated 23.06.2016 & 04.12.2018 passed by this Hon'ble High Court are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That the trial of the case has been initiated and statements and cross of the informant and other witnesses have recorded by the court concerned in which they all are stand with their statements under Sections 161 of Cr.P.C., with malafide intension to prove guilty the applicant. The photocopies of the statement and cross of the witnesses Shiv Bhavan Tiwari and Sandeep Kumar Tiwari of the trial are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this affidavit. That the then Sub Divisional Magistrate, who was present at time of inquest of the deceased namely Pradeep Kumar Singh, has been exmined by the trial court, who also state the family of the deceased were also present at time of inquest. The photocopy of the statement and cross of the witness Pradeep Kumar Singh of the trial is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. That the informant of the case again examined by the trial court on 07.01.2019, in which he change his statement, which was given earlier before the trial court and given several contradictive statements and adduced new facts and averment, which are never came in light earlier. The photocopy of the further statement and cross of the witness Shiv Bhanvan Tiwari of the trial is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That on bare perusal of the aforesaid statements of the witnesses of the ongoing trail, there are several contradiction in the all statements, which are not collobrated with the prosecution story. That all are the interested witnesses as such merely on basis of their statements and testimony, the applicant would not be pleaded guilty. That the deceased committed suicide for her own reasons, which has been discussed hereinabove but the informant and his family members falsely implecated the applicant and his family in said case with malafide intension. That there is no possibility of the applicant’s conviction because he has not committed the crime in question as alleged by the Informant. That this Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 04.12.2018 directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same within one year. The certified copy of the aforesaid order has been served to the court concerned but but after more than one and half year, the trial is not conculed yet. That the applicant is suffering from the piles since long back and due to excessive bleeding from piles he was reffered fron Jail Hospital to District Hospital, Pratapgarh. The applicant is diagnosed as ‘severe anemia” and his haemoglobin is just 5.2 insted of 13-17 g/dL. And due to seriousness of the applicant’s piles, he has been referred to the S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj by the District Hospital, Pratapgarh on 16.07.2020. Now the applicant is under treatment at Prayagraj and his operation was scheduled but due to unavibilety of the bed his operation is postponed as the patients of Covid-19 are under treatment in S.R.N. Hospital. The photocopy of the medical reports of the applicant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 11 to this affidavit. That now these days due to Covid-19, the trial court is not properly working therefore there is no chance to conclude the trial of the applicant as directed by this Hon'ble High Court as such in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial. That the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish personal bond and sureties to the entire satisfaction before the court, if the bail is granted to him. That in view of the above noted fact, it is clear that the applicant is innocent and his is in jail since 02.06.2014 as such it is expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial. |
I, Omanand aged about 24 years son of Shri Deshraj resident of Village – Madana Pura Bazar, Madan Uparhar, District – Faizabad (now Ayodhya), Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Studying, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the nephew (Bhatija) of the applicant and doing pairvi in the above-noted case and also duly authorized by the applicant for swearing this affidavit on his behalf. The deponent further declares that the contents of this instant application are explained by the counsel of the applicant in Hindi as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the applicant filed a Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2014 (Lok Nath Singh Versus State of U.P.) on 17.04.2014 before this Hon'ble High Court, which is still pending before this Hon'ble High Court. That the First bail application bearing Crl. Misc. Application No. 39623 of 2014 moved in criminal appeal has been rejected by Hon’ble Shri Ritu Raj Awasthi “J” and Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Jauhari “J” on 11.04.2019 and the second bail application bearing Crl. Misc. No. 67945 of 2020 of the appellant has been rejected by Hon'ble Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha “J and Mrs. Saroj Yadav “J” vide order dated 12.04.2022. The photocopy of the order dated 11.04.2019 and 12.04.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. - 1 to this affidavit. That now the third bail application is being filed by the applicant before this Hon'ble High Court on several new grounds. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That the applicant in jail since 13.08.2013 prior to the passing of the order and judgment dated passed in Session Trial No. 366A of 1991 (State Versus Lok Nath Singh) and Sessions Trial No. 373 of 1991 (State Versus Lok Nath Singh) passed on 30.01.2014. That the present bail application is being filed in pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4633 of 2021 (Saudan Singh Vs The State of U.P.) on 05.10.2021, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court directed this Hon'ble High Court to consider the bail applications filed in a criminal appeal. That the first information report lodged by the Informant, Shiv Prasad Pandey on 03.07.1991 against the five persons including the applicant in connection to Case Crime No. 229 of 1991, under Sections 147, 149, 149, 302 of IPC and Case Crime No. 230 of 1991 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act registered to Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Gonda. That according to the prosecution story, it was alleged in the first information report dated 03.07.1991 that the cousin brother of the informant namely Om Prakash (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was going to the city at that time some known persons & one unknown person, who had country made pistol (Katta) assaulted upon him. The unknown person fired upon the deceased. At that, the police personnel came to the spot and they caught one Bhullar and unknown persons i.e. the applicant along with Katta and 3 bullets. That the appellant was initially arrested on 03.07.1991 and after about more than six months, he was released on bail. That again the appellant was sent to jail on 13.08.2013 prior to passing the impugned order dated 30.01.2014 passed by the learned trial court. That the appellant is in jail since 13.08.2013 to till date and also he was in jail more than 6 months prior to 13.08.2013 as such he is in jail for more than 10 years as such the appellant is entitled to release on bail pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4633 of 2021 (Saudan Singh Vs The State of U.P.) on 05.10.2021. That the criminal appeal filed by the appellant is fixed for the final hearing from the last several dates but the matter could not be heard due to which the appellant is unnecessarily in jail. That there is no chance of the applicant’s absconding or tempering with the Prosecution evidence as he has been convicted by the court concerned on 30.01.2014 and he is willing to furnish surety to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble court. That it is further relevant to mention that the applicant if released on bail will not misuse his liberty. The Deponent is also ready to comply with any condition imposed by this Hon’ble Court. That considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the Applicant may kindly be enlarge the application on Bail in relation to Case Crime No. 229 of 1991, under Sections 147, 149, 149, 302 of IPC and Case Crime No. 230 of 1991 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act registered to Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Gonda, in the interest of justice. |
I, Omanand aged about 23 years son of Shri Deshraj resident of Village – Madana Pura Bazar, Madan Uparhar, District – Ayodhya, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Studying, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the nephew (Bhatija) of the applicant and doing pairvi in the above-noted case and also duly authorized by the applicant for swearing this affidavit on his behalf. The deponent further declares that the contents of this instant application are explained by the counsel of the applicant in Hindi as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the applicant has filed a Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2014 (Lok Nath Singh Versus State of U.P.) on 17.04.2014 before this Hon'ble High Court, which is still pending before this Hon'ble High Court. That the First bail application bearing Crl. Misc. Application No. 39623 of 2014 moved in criminal appeal has been rejected by Hon’ble Shri Ritu Raj Awasthi “J” and Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Jauhari “J” on 11.04.2019. That later on the second bail application was filed by the applicant bearing Crl. Misc. Application No. 67945 of 2020 is pending before this Hon'ble High Court for consideration. Now no any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court and the present short-term bail application is the first short-term bail application of the applicant. That the applicant in jail since 30.01.2014 in furtherance of the order and judgment dated passed in Session Trial No. 366A of 1991 (State Versus Lok Nath Singh) and Sessions Trial No. 373 of 1991 (State Versus Lok Nath Singh) passed on 30.01.2014. That the first information report lodged by the Informant, Shiv Prasad Pandey on 03.07.1991 against the five persons including the applicant in connection to Case Crime No. 229 of 1991, under Sections 147, 149, 149, 302 of IPC and Case Crime No. 230 of 1991 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act registered to Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Gonda. That according to the prosecution story, it was alleged in the first information report dated 03.07.1991 that the cousin brother of the informant namely Om Prakash (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was going to the city at that time some known persons & one unknown person, who had country made pistol (Katta) assaulted upon him. The unknown person fired upon the deceased. At that, the police personnel came to the spot and they caught one Bhullar and unknown persons i.e. the applicant along with Katta and 3 bullets. That there is no likelihood that the regular bail application of the applicant will be decided in his favour pending in the Criminal Appeal filed by him as earlier bail applications filed by the applicant has rejected by the respective court and one is pending before this Hon'ble High Court. That meanwhile the marriage of the daughter of the applicant namely Kr. Kaya Singh is fixed for 28.05.2021 and the ritual of the marriage will be started on 27.05.2021 and be ended on 05.06.2021. The photocopy of the marriage card of the applicant’s daughter is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That the applicant is the father and as per Hindu rituals/customs, several marriage rituals are not completed without the father of the bride, as such this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to enlarge the application on Short Term Bail in Case Crime No. 229 of 1991, under Sections 147, 149, 149, 302 of IPC and Case Crime No. 230 of 1991 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act registered to Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Gonda, for a period of 30 days. That it is also relevant to mention there is no chance of tempering or threatening the witnesses of the case. That there is no chance of the applicant’s absconding or tempering with the Prosecution evidence as he has been convicted by the court concerned on 30.01.2014 and he is willing to furnish surety to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble court. That it is further relevant to mention that the applicant if released on parole/short-term bail will not misuse his liberty and would surrender himself on the expiry of the period of short-term bail/parole. The Deponent is also ready to comply with any condition imposed by this Hon’ble Court. That considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the Applicant may kindly be released on parole/short-term bail for 30 days or for the term as this Hon’ble court deems fit. |
I, Prmila Yadav aged about 22 years daughter of Shri Badri Prasad Yadav resident of Village – Tirchha Peeng, Kunda, Peeng, Pratapgarh, Sangramgarh, Police Station - Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Illiterate, Occupation – Agricultural labour, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the sister/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to doing pairavi and files the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and her photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief facts of the case is that; on 02.07.2022, Shri Ayodhya Prasad son of Late Gayadeen resident of Village Tirchha, Police Station - Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) lodged a first information report bearing Case Crime No. 169 of 2022 under Sections 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 427 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh against the applicant and his brothers of the applicant and two unknown persons with regard to an attempt to murder of the husband of the informant by firing upon him with regarding incident dated 25.06.2022. The photo/typed copy of the first information report dated 02.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That the prosecution of the informant in nutshell is that on 25.06.2022 around 07.30 hours, the applicant and his brother were in a property dispute trying to take possession of the informant’s land and protested the same, the applicant and his brothers have beaten the informant and others by lathi, danda, iron rod. That the alleged incident took place as the informant on 25.06.2022 but the first information report has been lodged on 02.07.2022 i.e. more than 7 days delay, without giving any explanation with regard to the delay caused in lodging FIR, which is questionable and doubtful as the informant aforesaid FIR on basis of legal advice to harass the applicant and his family members and also for blackmailing for money. That initially the injured persons have been brought for their medical at C.H.C. Kunda, Pratapgarh on 25.06.2022 around 10.30 hours, where their medical reports have been prepared and referred to S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj. The photo/typed copies of the medical reports dated 25.06.2022 of the injured are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That thereafter, the injured have brought to S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj on the very same day i.e. 25.06.2022, where the C.T. Scan of all three injured persons have been conducted. The photo/ typed copies of the S.T. Scan reports of the injured persons dated 25.06.2022 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That on a bare perusal of the medical reports of the injured person, they seem to be forged and fabricated so for concern to the S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj as the 2 C.T. Scan report has been handwritten while one is computerized. That after about two months the C.T. Scan of the injured person, the supplementary medical report of two injured were prepared on 06.08.2022 and about four months later the supplementary medical of the third injured was prepared on 01.10.2022 by the C.H.C., Kunda, Pratapgarh. The photo/ typed copies of the supplementary medical reports of the injured dated 06.08.2022 & 01.10.2022 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. th That the statement of the informant has been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the concerned police on 03.07.2022, in which he almost repeated his first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 03.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the statements of the injured were also recorded by the concerned police on 25.07.2022 and 24.09.2022 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which she almost repeated the statement of the informant. The typed copy of the statements of the injured are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the version of the injured has not collaborated with the medical report as the injured sustained injuries. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant and informant are residents of the same village and have a dispute regarding the land. That the informant is arrogant person and has enmity with some other villagers, as a result of the same on 25.06.2022, the informant and others fought with other, and they sustained injuries but later after well plan the informant cooked a false and fabricated story to falsely implicate the applicant and his brothers in the said case crime. That here it is relevant to mention that the applicant and his brothers were not in the village at the time of the incident and they were in Punjab, where they were working since long back. That the applicant and his brothers have been arrested by the concerned police on 11.08.2022, when the applicant and his brothers were retruned to their village on occation of the Rakshabandhan, which has been itself clered by the arresting memo. That there is no independent witness of the case crime, which also creat doubts upon the prosecution story. That it is also relevant to mention here that no case is made out against the applicant as alleged in the said application and the applicant has never committed any offence as alleged. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant was falsely implicated by the informant in said case crime with the collusion of the concerned police, Applicant has no concern with the said offence. That there is no credible evidence on record, which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed this crime in question and the evidence available on record, itself shows that no prima facie offence under Sections 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 427, 325 of I.P.C. registered, in the interest of Justice. That without proper investigation of the case crime, the investigating officer has submitted the charge against the applicant and his brothers bearing charge sheet No. 228 of 2022 under Section 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 427, 325 of I.P.C. on 03.10.2022 That neither any evidence was found against the applicant nor has any motive been assigned to the applicant in the present case except general allegations. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated and has no involvement in the said case as alleged in the first information report. That there is no criminal history of the applicant accept present case That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 3733 of 2022 before Additional Session Judge, Room No. 3, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 17.01.2023. The free certified copy of the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.08.2022 without committing any offense as alleged by the informant. That there is no possibility of the applicant’s conviction because he has not committed the crime in question as alleged by the informant. That the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection to Case Crime No. 169 of 2022 under Sections 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 427, 325 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of Justice during the pendency of case. |
I, Jaybeer Ali aged about 47 years son of Shri Sikandar resident of Kalua Ghat, Aoripur Naugir, Ramganj, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Muslim, Occupation – labour, Education – Literate, do hereby solemnly affirm and states on oath as under :- That the deponent is the pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to doing pairavi and files the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That the informant namely Shri Virendra Kumar Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station – Udaypur, District – Pratapgarh lodged a first information report and stated therein as the informant and his team (other police personnel) got information in regard of huge Adulterated liquor, rapper and equipment for packaging/making liquor at poultry form nearby Kalua Ghat and his team raid at said poultry form where the 2 persons were arrested on the spot, they were working with the adulterated liquor. The photo/typed copy of the first information report dated 07.04.2006 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That the name of the applicant mentioned in first information report as Azeem Khan at serial No. 2 of accused column, while his name is Aziz Khan. That the real fact of the incident is that the applicant is falsely implicated by the concerned police for showing their good work and also for extraneous reasons. That there is no concerned with the said allegation as alleged by the informant. The applicant is only labour/chaukidar in poultry form and he was present at time of raid conducted by the team. That here it is relevant to mention that the applicant was working in said poultry form as labour and also working as chaukidar so he was also found at night. At time raid the applicant informed the applicant regarding his status in poultry form but for showing his good work and conduct, named in first information report. That thereafter the informant falsely implicates the applicant, in the said crime, which is baseless and illegal as the applicant are not involved in any criminal activity as alleged against him. That it is relevant to mention here that the nothing has been recovered from the applicant, the recovery which has been made related to case crime is incorrect and wrong. That the informant levelled the charges upon the applicant for working with the illegal liquor, which is wrong and incorrect. The informant with ill intension incorporate the applicant’s name in said first information report. That it is relevant and most important to mention here that where the concerned police raided at alleged place i.e. poultry form of Shri Guddu Singh alias Kedarnath, which has no any concerned with the said place with the applicant in any manner as alleged against him. That the informant falsely implicates the applicant, in the said crime, which is baseless and illegal due to ulterior motive. That the nothing was recovered in the regard of Adulterated liquor from the applicant in any manner by the investigation officer. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged, hence no offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 255, 272 I.P.C., 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910 and 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 at Police Station – Udaypur, District – Pratapgarh, is made against him. That the applicant is 61 year old person and also he is under treatment and needs proper treatment. The photocopy of the adhar card and medical treatment papers of the applicant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant was falsely implicated by the informant in said case crime with collusion of the concerned police. That there is no credible evidence on record, which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed this crime in question and the evidence available on record, itself shows that no prima facie offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 255, 272 I.P.C., 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910 and 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 is made out against the applicant. That till yet the charge sheet has not filed by the concerned police in said case crime. That neither any evidence was found against the applicant nor has any motive been assigned to the applicant in the present case except general allegations against the applicant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated and has no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1609 of 2018 before Session Judge and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 25.09.2018. The photo copy of the order dated 25.09.2018 passed by court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 3 to this application. That the applicant in jail since 02.09.2018 without committing any offence as alleged against the applicant by the informant. That there is no possibility of the applicant’s conviction because he has not committed the crime in question as alleged by the informant. That the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That there is no independent witness of alleged recovery made from the applicant while the nothing has been recovered from the applicant. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Ranvijay Singh aged about 20 years son of Shri Lalji Singh resident of Village – Soti Ka Purwa, Panchmahua, Police Station - Bhagrai, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Occupation – Studying, Education – Student of B.A. 3rd year, do hereby solemnly affirm and states on oath as under, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the brother/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to doing pairavi and file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under: That the photo of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is first bail of the applicant filed before this Hon’ble Court and no other bail application on same cause of action is filed or pending in any court of law. That on 08.12.2019 at about 20.30 Hours, the informant Shri Ravindra Singh Yadav, Station House Officer, Police Station – Bhagrai, District – Pratapgarh lodged a first information report against 03 persons including the applicant at Case Crime No. 283 of 2019 under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Bhagrai, District – Pratapgarh. The photo and typed copy of the first information report dated 08.12.2019 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the applicant along with his companions is the active member of the a gang, who is committing the offences in organized manner regularly as they are habitual, for their economic benefit and due to their terror no one can dare to speak against them. That prior to lodging the aforesaid case crime against the applicant, the gang chart has been approved by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh on 28.11.2019. The photo and typed copy of the gang chart is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is totally innocent and does not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report by the informant. That the informant in order to showing his good and hard work, falsely implicate the applicant in several case crimes, which are pending before him and thereafter finally lodged the said first information report dated 08.12.2019 under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act:- Case Crime No. 109 of 2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 286, 308, 325 of I.P.C., at Police Station – Bhagrai, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been released on bail by the Additional Session Judge/F.T.C.-1, Pratapgarh on 04.08.2020. Case Crime No. 83 of 2017 under Sections 302 of I.P.C. and 3(2)V of S.C. & S.T. Act, at Police Station – Bhagrai, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been released on bail by the court concerned on 16.07.2018 passed by this Hon'ble High Court, which has been corrected vide order dated 03.08.2018. The photocopies of the orders passed by the Additional Session Judge/F.T.C.-1, Pratapgarh on 04.08.2020 and order dated 16.07.2018 & 03.08.2018 passed by this Hon'ble High Court are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this application. That it is relevant to mention here that apart from above cases, the applicant has been also falsely implicated in below mentioned case crimes, which are as under: Case Crime No. 104 of 2017 under Sections 3/25 of Arms Act, at Police Station – Bhagrai, District – Pratapgarh, in which, the applicant has been released on bail by the court concerned on 06.08.2018 passed by IInd Additional Session Judge, Pratapgarh. Case No. 2 of 2019 under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 initiated but same has been quashed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh on 20.03.2020. Case Crime No. 60 of 2020 under Sections 3/25 of Arms Act, at Police Station – Bhagrai, District – Pratapgarh, the bail application of the applicant is pending before the court concerned due to Covid-19. The photocopies of the orders dated 06.08.2018 passed by IInd Additional Session Judge, Pratapgarh & order dated 20.03.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this application. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is a poor villager and common man of society. He is neither member of alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involve any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not committed any offence for his economical and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under the threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is student and belongs to respected family of society. The applicant is neither member of alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involves any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. That the applicant does not any committed offence for his economical and physical benefit. The applicant is not convicted previously in any case crime. The allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That the informant alleged that the applicant is gang leader while in Case Crime No. 83 of 2017 under Sections 302 of I.P.C. and 3(2)V of S.C. & S.T. Act, at Police Station – Bhagrai, District – Pratapgarh, the name of the applicant came in light from the statement of another accused, in which the applicant has granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court. The applicant have no any gang and not the leader of the same. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged, hence no offence under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 relating to Police Station – Bhagrai, District – Pratapgarh, is made against him. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is in jail since 14.02.2020 without committing any offense and the applicant is convicted previously by the competent court of law. That the applicant had moved his bail application bearing number 1305 of 2020 before the Bail rejected by Additional Session Judge/ F.T.C.-I, Pratapgarh and same has been rejected on 07.09.2020. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 07.09.2020 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive which given in case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish personal bond and sureties to the entire satisfaction before the court, if the bail is granted to him. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial. |
I, Anand Kumar Smt. Khurshida Bano aged 35 years wife of Iqbal Ahmad resident of resident of in front of civil Court, Subhash Nagar, kunda District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Muslim, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Housewife, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is wife of the applicant and doing pairvi of applicant in the above noted case duly authorized by him and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed in the instant affidavit. That the photo of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is first bail of the applicant filed before this Hon’ble Court and no other bail application on same cause of action is filed or pending in any court of law. That on 02.09.2020 at about 11.41 Hours, the informant Shri Devendra pratap Singh, In-Charge Station House Officer, Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh lodged a first information report against 2 persons including the applicant at Case Crime No. 370 of 2020 under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh. The certified and typed copy of the first information report dated 02.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the applicant along with his companions are the active member of the a gang, who is committing the offences in organized manner regularly as they are habitual, for their economic benefit and due to their terror no one can dare to speak against them. That prior to lodging the aforesaid case crime against the applicant, the gang chart has been approved by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh on 28.08.2020. The photo and typed copy of the gang chart is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is totally innocent and does not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report by the informant. That the informant in order to showing his good and hard work, falsely implicate the applicant in several case crimes, which are pending before him and thereafter finally lodged the said first information report dated 02.09.2020 under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act mentioning the Two cases mentioned below:- Case Crime No. 112 of 2020 under Sections 307,504,506 IPC and 4/5 of explosive act , at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh. In which the applicant has granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court on 19.11.2020. Case Crime No. 365 of 2019 under Sections 3/25 of Arms act , at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has granted bail by the Additional Chif judicial magistrate on 31.10.2019. That it is relevant to mention here that apart from above cases, the applicant has been also falsely implicated in below mentioned case crimes, which are as under: Case Crime No. 817 of 2014 under Sections, 396, 302, 201, 412, 34 of IPC, related to Police Station – Munshiganj, District – Amethi, in which the applicant has been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 193 of 2014 under Sections, 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, related to Police Station – Kotwali, District – Sultanpur, in which the applicant has been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 175 of 2016 under Section 110G of Cr.P.C.. related to, Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh. The aforesaid case is not comes under the criminal history category. Case Crime No. 215 of 2016 under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gunda Act related to Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh. The photocopy of Bail orders is being Annexed herewith as Annexure No.3 to this affidavit. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is neither member of alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involved any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not committed any offence for his economical and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under the threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That after arresting the applicant in connection with Case Crime No. 112 of 2020 under Sections 307,504,506 and 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act,1908 , at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, the concerned police falsely implicated the applicant. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is a labour and a sole earner of family, as he is in the jail since 20.04.2020 the family is facing trouble for survival That the applicant does not any committed offence for his economical and physical benefit. The applicant is not convicted previously in any case crime. The allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged, hence no offence under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 relating to Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, is made against him. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is in jail since 20.04.2020 without committing any offense and the applicant is not convicted previously by any competent court of law. That the applicant had moved his bail application bearing number 1655 of 2021 before the Bail rejected by Additional Special Session judge (Gangster) Pratapgarh on 15.09.2021, and same has been rejected on 15.09.2020. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 15.09.2020 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That the another accused of the case crime namely Hashim khan is in jail. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive which given in case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish personal bond and sureties to the entire satisfaction before the court, if the bail is granted to him. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial. |
I, Hari Narayan Singh aged about 62 years son of Shri Sangam Singh resident of Village – Muraini, Dhangarh, Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Occupation – Agriculture, Qualification – Literate, do hereby solemnly affirm and states on oath as under, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the father/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to doing pairavi and file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under: That the photo of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is first bail of the applicant filed before this Hon’ble Court and no other bail application on same cause of action is filed or pending in any court of law. That on 09.04.2021 at about 20.25 Hours, the informant Shri Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi, In charge Inspector, Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh lodged a first information report against 06 persons including the applicant at Case Crime No. 69 of 2021 under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh. The photo and typed copy of the first information report dated 09.04.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the applicant along with his companions is the active member of the a gang, who is committing the offences in organized manner regularly as they are habitual, for their economic benefit and due to their terror no one can dare to speak against them. That prior to lodging the aforesaid case crime against the applicant, the gang chart has been approved by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh on 03.04.2021. The photo and typed copy of the gang chart is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That the Gang chart prepared on the basis of case crime no. 79 of 2020 under sections- 302,307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 147 of I.P.C., at Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, in which applicant granted bail on 22.12.2022 by this Hon’ble court. (Crl.misc.case.no. 13283(B) of 2022) Manish Singh versus State of U.P. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is totally innocent and does not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report by the informant. That the informant in order to showing his good and hard work, falsely implicate the applicant in some case crimes, which are pending before him and thereafter finally lodged the said first information report dated 09.04.2021 under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act:- Case Crime No. 27 of 2009 under sections 323+ of I.P.C. and 3(i)x S.c.S.t Act, at Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, in which order passed by juvenile justice board Pratapgarh dated 14.12.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That the case crime no. 139 of 2009 under section 110-g Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, proceeding is lapse of time. That the case crime no. 290 of 2009 under section 110-g Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, proceeding is lapse of time. Case Crime No. 79 of 2020 under sections- 302,307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 147 of I.P.C., at Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, in which applicant granted bail on 22.12.2022 by this Hon’ble court. (Crl.misc.case.no. 13283(B) of 2022) Manish Singh versus State of U.P. That the case crime no. 434 of 2022 under section- 506 of I.P.C. Police Station- Kotwali city that the above case till today not to judicial remand of the applicant. N.C.R no. 81 of 2011 under section -323, 504, 506, 427, of I.P.C. Police Station – Sangramgarh, District- Pratapgarh. That the above case is wrongly mentioned no concern of the applicant. That the accept aforesaid mention case no criminal history. That it is relevant to mention here that the all co-accused of the case crime granted bail by court below. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is a poor villager and common man of society. He is neither member of alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involve any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not committed any offence for his economical and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under the threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant belongs to respected family of society. The applicant is neither member of alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involves any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. That the applicant does not any committed offence for his economical and physical benefit. The applicant is not convicted previously in any case crime. The allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged, hence no offence under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 relating to Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, is made against him. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is in jail since 26.05.2020 without committing any offense. That the applicant had moved his bail application bearing number 10 of 2023 before Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge(Gangster) room no. 2, Pratapgarh and same has been rejected on 10.01.2023. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 10.01.2023 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive which given in case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish personal bond and sureties to the entire satisfaction before the court, if the bail is granted to him. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial. |
I, Sandeep Singh aged about 21 years son of Shri Kanhaiya Bux Singh resident of Tikiriya Bujurg Kanava, Police Station - Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Student, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is brother of applicant and doing pairvi of Applicant in the above noted case and duly authorized by him for filing instant application before the Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is first bail of the applicant filed before this Hon’ble Court and no other bail application on same cause of action is filed or pending in any court of law. That on 10.12.2021 at about 23.22 Hours, the informant Shri Pradeep Kumar, In-Charge Station House Officer, Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh lodged a first information report against 10 persons including the applicant at Case Crime No. 412 of 2021 under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh. The certified and typed copy of the first information report dated 10.12.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the applicant along with his companions are the active member of the a gang, who is committing the offences in organized manner regularly as they are habitual, for their economic benefit and due to their terror no one can dare to speak against them. That prior to lodging the aforesaid case crime against the applicant, the gang chart has been approved by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh on 07.12.2021. The photo and typed copy of the gang chart is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is totally innocent and does not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report by the informant. That the informant in order to showing his good and hard work, falsely implicate the applicant in several case crimes, which are pending before him and thereafter finally lodged the said first information report dated 10.12.2021 under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act. The two cases mentioned in the gang chart are as below:- Case Crime No. 124 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60A, 60 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 16.08.2021 passed by the court below. Case Crime No. 125 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60A, 60 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 16.08.2021 passed by the court below. The photocopies of Bail orders passed by the court below are being annexed herewith as Annexure No.3 to this affidavit. That the cases mentioned in the gang chart, name of the applicant came in light on the information given by the informer. It is also relevant to mention that the applicant has no concern with the adulterated liquor and no recovery has been made from the applicant. That the applicant is falsely implicated in several cases lodged against the applicant, which the applicant has not committed any offense. The details of the case, which are lodged against the applicant, as per best knowledge of the applicant are as under:- Case Crime No. 49 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60(2), 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 13.12.2021 passed by court below. Case Crime No. 50 of 2021 under Sections 302, 307, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 34 of I.P.C., 60, 60A of U.P. Excise Act, 1910 registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, in which bail application is pending before court below. Case Crime No. 122 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 20.07.2021 passed by the court below. Case Crime No. 124 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60A, 60 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 16.08.2021 passed by the court below. Case Crime No. 125 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60A, 60 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 16.08.2021 passed by the court below. Case Crime No. 208 of 2021 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 486, 487, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60, 60A, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 15.12.2021 passed by the court below. Case Crime No. 412 of 2021 under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, in which is bail application is pending before the court below. Case Crime No. 107 of 2021 under Sections 302, 307, 120B, 34, 272, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and 60A, 60 U.P. Excise Act registered Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Ayodhya, this is present case, in which the applicant is enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble High Court on 10.02.2022. The photocopies of the bail order passed by this Hon'ble High Court as well court below are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this application. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is neither member of alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involved any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not committed any offence for his economical and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under the threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. The police for showing there good work falsely implicated the applicant in the said case crime. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is a farmer and a sole earner of family, family is facing trouble in survival. That the applicant is in jail since 11.11.2021 without committing any offence as alleged against him. That the applicant does not committed any offence for his economical and physical benefit. The applicant is not convicted previously in any case crime. The allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged, hence no offence under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 relating to Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, is made against him. That the applicant had moved his bail application bearing number 311 of 2022 before the Additional Session judge/Special Judge (Gangster), Room No.5, Pratapgarh and same has been rejected on 08.02.2022. The free copy of the bail rejection order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No.5 to this affidavit. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That the applicant is previously not convicted by any court of law. That the applicant further declares in compliance of the Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that the applicant is committed any offense as alleged in the first information report and also he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail, if so granted by this Hon'ble High Court. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive which given in case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish personal bond and sureties to the entire satisfaction before the court, if the bail is granted to him. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial. |
I, Shiavakar Singh aged about 20 years son of Shri Chhail Bihari resident of Angurihan Purab Nara District – Allahabad, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is cousin brother of applicant and doing pairvi of applicant in the above noted case and duly authorized by him for filing instant application before the Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is first bail of the applicant filed before this Hon’ble Court and no other bail application on same cause of action is filed or pending in any court of law. That on 13.05.2022 at about 22.59 Hours, the informant Shri Krishna Kumar Mishra Station House Officer, Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Ayodhya lodged a first information report against 6 persons including the applicant at Case Crime No. 128 of 2021 under section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Ayodhya. The certified and typed copy of the first information report dated 13.05.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the applicant is gang member of a gang, who used to commit the offences in organized manner regularly as they are habitual, for their economic benefit and due to their terror no one can dare to speak against them. That prior to lodging the aforesaid case crime against the applicant, the gang chart has been approved by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya on 11.05.2022. The photo and typed copy of the gang chart is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is totally innocent and does not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report by the informant. That the informant in order to showing his good and hard work, falsely implicate the applicant in several case crimes, which are pending before him and thereafter finally lodged the said first information report dated 13.05.2022 under Section 3(1) of Gangster Act, The one mentioned in the gang chart which is as Case Crime No. 107 of 2021 under Sections 302, 307, 120B, 34, 272, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and 60 of U.P. Excise Act registered at Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Ayodhya, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 24.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. The photocopy of Bail order dated 24.12.2021 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.3 to this affidavit. That in relation to the Case Crime No. 107 of 2021, there are to First Information Reports lodged under Gangster Act i.e. 1. 217 of 2021 against 10 persons and 2. 128 of 2022 against 6 persons, which are registered at Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Ayodhya under Section 3(1) of Gangster Act. The photocopy of the first information report of Case Crime No. 217 of 2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That after lodging the first information report against the applicant, he challenged the same before this Hon'ble High Court bearing Writ Petition No. 3843 (CRLP) of 2022, which is still pending. That according to Rule 4 (3) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2021’) that if needed after investigation that some other accuses are involve in crime and against them gang chart not approved then authority concerned proceed further for approval of the gang chart but there is no provision to lodge another first information report. That the applicant is falsely implicated in several cases lodged against the applicant, which the applicant has not committed any offense. The details of the case, which are lodged against the applicant, as per best knowledge of the applicant are as under:- Case Crime No. 48 of 2021 under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, Police Station - Hathigawan District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 15.11.2021 passed by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 49 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60(2), 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 22.11.2021 passed by this Hon'ble High Court Case Crime No. 50 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60(2), 60A, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 06.12.2021 passed by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 51 of 2021 under section 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, Police Station - Hathigawan District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 14.12.2021 passed by court below. Case Crime No. 124 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60A, 60 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 24.11.2021 passed by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 125 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60A, 60 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 09.12.2021 passed by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 107 of 2021 under Sections 302, 307, 120B, 34, 272, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and 60A, 60 U.P. Excise Act registered Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Ayodhya. In this case the name of the applicant came in light from the statements of the accused persons, in which the applicant granted bail on 24.12.2021 passed by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 201 of 2021 under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 lodged on 09.10.2021 at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 18.05.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court. Another case has been lodged against the applicant, when he is jail, under the influence of the local politician on 14.10.2021 bearing Case Crime No. 208 of 2021 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 486, 487, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60, 60A, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 10.12.2021 passed by this Hon'ble High Court. The aforesaid 9 cases are recently lodged under the political pressure of the local politician against the applicant. Case Crime No. 53 of 2004 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 343 of IPC registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been acquitted on 28.01.2020 by the court concerned. Case Crime No. 685 of 2009 under Sections 147, 148, 504, 506, 323, 363, 120 of IPC and 3(1)10 of S.C. and S.T. Act registered at Police Station – Saurawan, District – Allahabad, in which the concerned police filed submitted final report in favour of the applicant. Case Crime No. 513 of 2010 under Sections 395, 397, 307, 323, 504 of IPC registered at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 05.03.2011 by the court concerned. Case Crime No. 302 of 2011 under Section 110G of Cr.P.C. registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh. The applicant has no knowledge about said case. Case Crime No. 19 of 2012 under Section 3(1) Gunda Act registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh. The applicant has no knowledge about said case. Case Crime No. 18 of 2013 under Sections 302 of IPC registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 04.03.2014 by the court concerned. Case Crime No. 20 of 2013 under sections 302, 504, 506, 120B of IPC registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, in which the final report has been submitted in favour of the applicant. Case Crime No. 21 of 2013 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 506, 120B of IPC registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, in which the final report has been submitted in favour of the applicant. case crime no. 57/2023 under section 63 of U.P. Excise Act, Police station – Hathigawan, district – Pratapgarh on 06.04.2023 registered against the applicant after surrender in case crime no. 128/2022 before Gangster Court Faizabad on 03.04.2023. The photocopies of the bail orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court & court below and other related documents of the applicant are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this application. That apart of above mentioned cases, there is no criminal history against the applicant. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is neither member of alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involved any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not committed any offence for his economical and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under the threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. The police for showing there good work falsely implicated the applicant in the said case crime. That the real fact is that the applicant is innocent and belongs to a respected family and has good reputation. That the entire case has been made and based against the applicant only on information of the police informer, which is not reliable as nothing is supported to prosecution story. That the applicant having severe Chronic Liver Disease (70% liver is infected) and high diabetic & also suffering from heart disease and was under treatment. After surrender of the applicant, there is no proper treatment is being given to the applicant due to which his life is in danger. The photocopy of the medical prescription of the applicant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this Affidavit. That the Case Crime No. 128 of 2021 under section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Ayodhya. Except applicant all accused granted bail by this Hon’ble Court. The Photocopy of bail no. 2555 of 2023 (Sudhakar Singh ‘Gang leader’) versus state of U.P. on 20.02.2023 are being annexed herewith as Annexure no. 7 to this application. That informant working for the present local Member of the Parliament of the ruling party due to political vendetta, he has been falsely implicated in the case crime. That in result of the above, the informant falsely implicates the applicant, in the said crime for ulterior motive, which is baseless and illegal as the applicant is not involved in any criminal activity as alleged against him. That the applicant is in jail since 03.04.2023 after his surrender, without committing any offence as alleged against him. That the applicant does not committed any offence for his economical and physical benefit. The applicant is not convicted previously in any case crime. The allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged, hence no offence under Sections 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 relating to Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Ayodhya, is made against him. That the applicant had moved his bail application bearing number 732 of 2023 before the Special Judge (Gangster) Additional Session judge Room no. 12, Ayodhya and same has been rejected on 12.04.2023. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That the applicant is previously not convicted by any court of law. That the applicant further declares in compliance of the Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that the applicant is committed any offense as alleged in the first information report and also he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail, if so granted by this Hon'ble High Court. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive which given in case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish personal bond and sureties to the entire satisfaction before the court, if the bail is granted to him. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial. |
I, Pushpraj Singh aged about 47 years son of Shri Hridesh Singh resident of Village – Sahibapur Derva, Pahadpur Banohi, Police Station - Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Occupation – Agriculture, Education – Intermediate, do hereby solemnly affirm and states on oath as under, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the father/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to doing pairavi and file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under: That the photo of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is first bail of the applicant filed before this Hon’ble Court and no other bail application on same cause of action is filed or pending in any court of law. That on 08.02.2020 at about 21.26 Hours, the informant Shri Devendra Pratap Singh, In charge Inspector, Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh lodged a first information report against 04 persons including the applicant at Case Crime No. 35 of 2020 under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh. The photo and typed copy of the first information report dated 08.02.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the applicant along with his companions is the active member of the a gang, who is committing the offences in organized manner regularly as they are habitual, for their economic benefit and due to their terror no one can dare to speak against them. That prior to lodging the aforesaid case crime against the applicant, the gang chart has been approved by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh on 11.01.2020. The photo and typed copy of the gang chart is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is totally innocent and does not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report by the informant. That the informant in order to showing his good and hard work, falsely implicate the applicant in several case crimes, which are pending before him and thereafter finally lodged the said first information report dated 08.02.2020 under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act:- Case Crime No. 154 of 2019 under Sections 457, 380, 411, 413, 414 of I.P.C., at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the charge sheet No. 155A of 2020 filed by the concerned police on 10.01.2020. In aforesaid case, the applicant has been released on bail by the court concerned on 02.01.2020. Case Crime No. 155 of 2019 under Sections 457, 380, 411, 413, 414 of I.P.C., at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the charge sheet No. 159A of 2020 filed by the concerned police on 10.01.2020. In aforesaid case, the applicant has been released on bail by the court concerned on 11.12.2019. Case Crime No. 156 of 2019 under Sections 457, 380, 411, 413, 414 of I.P.C., at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the charge sheet No. 160A of 2020 filed by the concerned police on 10.01.2020. In aforesaid case, the applicant has been released on bail by the court concerned on 11.12.2019. Case Crime No. 193 of 2019 under Sections 457, 380, 411, 413, 414 of I.P.C., at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the charge sheet No. 161A of 2020 filed by the concerned police on 10.01.2020. In aforesaid case, the applicant has been released on bail by the court concerned on 17.12.2019. Case Crime No. 246 of 2019 under Sections 457, 380, 411, 413, 414 of I.P.C., at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the charge sheet No. 162A of 2020 filed by the concerned police on 10.01.2020. In aforesaid case, the applicant has been released on bail by the court concerned on 17.12.2019. Case Crime No. 248 of 2019 under Sections 457, 380, 411, 413, 414 of I.P.C., at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the charge sheet No. 153A of 2020 filed by the concerned police on 10.01.2020. In aforesaid case, the applicant has been released on bail by the court concerned on 23.12.2019. Case Crime No. 249 of 2019 under Sections 457, 380, 411, 413, 414 of I.P.C., at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the charge sheet No. 150A of 2020 filed by the concerned police on 10.01.2020. In aforesaid case, the applicant has been released on bail by the court concerned on 23.12.2019. Case Crime No. 253 of 2019 under Sections 457, 380, 411, 413, 414 of I.P.C., at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the charge sheet No. 164A of 2020 filed by the concerned police on 10.01.2020. In aforesaid case, the applicant has been released on bail by the court concerned on 19.12.2019. Case Crime No. 235 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 386, 504, 506 of IPC and 3(2)5 of S.T. & S.C. Act, at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh. In aforesaid case, the applicant has been released on bail by the court concerned on 09.01.2020. The photocopies of the orders passed by the court concerned by which the applicant has been enlarged on bail are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this application. That it is relevant to mention here that the co-accused of the case crime namely Shubham Singh alias Sibbu Singh enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 16.06.2020 in Crl. Misc. Case. No. 3066 (B) of 2020 (Shubham Singh @ Sibbu Singh Vs State of U.P.). The photocopy of the order dated 16.06.2020 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is a poor villager and common man of society. He is neither member of alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involve any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not committed any offence for his economical and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under the threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is student and belongs to respected family of society. The applicant is neither member of alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involves any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. That the applicant does not any committed offence for his economical and physical benefit. The applicant is not convicted previously in any case crime. The allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged, hence no offence under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 relating to Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, is made against him. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is in jail since 05.08.2020 without committing any offense. That the applicant had moved his bail application bearing number 1253 of 2020 before the Bail rejected by Additional Session Judge/ F.T.C.-I, (Gangster Court), Pratapgarh and same has been rejected on 28.08.2020. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 28.08.2020 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive which given in case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish personal bond and sureties to the entire satisfaction before the court, if the bail is granted to him. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial. |
I, Durga Bux Singh aged about 51 years son of Shri Satya Dev Singh resident of 3/344, Vishwash Khand – 3, Police Station - Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Religion – Hindu, Occupation – Business, Education – Graduate, do hereby solemnly affirm and states on oath as under :- That the deponent is cousin brother of applicant and doing pairvi of Applicant in the above noted case and duly authorized by him for filing instant application before the Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is first bail of the applicant filed before this Hon’ble Court and no other bail application on same cause of action is filed or pending in any court of law. That on 13.05.2022 at about 22.59 Hours, the informant Shri Krishna Kumar Mishra Station House Officer, Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Ayodhya lodged a first information report against 6 persons including the applicant at Case Crime No. 128 of 2021 under section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Ayodhya. The certified and typed copy of the first information report dated 13.05.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the applicant is gang leader of a gang, who used to committing the offences in organized manner regularly as they are habitual, for their economic benefit and due to their terror no one can dare to speak against them. That prior to lodging the aforesaid case crime against the applicant, the gang chart has been approved by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya on 11.05.2022. The photo and typed copy of the gang chart is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is totally innocent and does not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report by the informant. That the informant in order to showing his good and hard work, falsely implicate the applicant in several case crimes, which are pending before him and thereafter finally lodged the said first information report dated 13.05.2022 under Section 3(1) of Gangster Act, The one mentioned in the gang chart which is as Case Crime No. 107 of 2021 under Sections 302, 307, 120B, 34, 272, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and 60 of U.P. Excise Act registered at Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Ayodhya, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 22.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. The photocopy of Bail order dated 22.12.2021 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.3 to this affidavit. That in relation to the Case Crime No. 107 of 2021, there are to First Information Reports lodged under Gangster Act i.e. 1. 217 of 2021 against 10 persons and 2. 128 of 2022 against 6 persons, which are registered at Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Ayodhya under Section 3(1) of Gangster Act. The photocopy of the first information report of Case Crime No. 217 of 2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That after lodging the first information report against the applicant, he challenged the same before this Hon'ble High Court bearing Writ Petition No. 3802 (CRLP) of 2022, which is still pending. That according to Rule 4 (3) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2021’) that if needed after investigation that some other accuses are involve in crime and against them gang chart not approved then authority concerned proceed further for approval of the gang chart but there is no provision to lodge another first information report. That during the investigation of the Case Crime No. 107 of 2021, the investigating officer recorded the several statements of the witnesses of the case crime under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. namely Ram Tirath, Pullu Kahar, Hriday Kumar Tiwari, Sanay Tiwari, Rakesh Verma, Bachcha Ram, Deepak Verma, Raju Verma and Mohd. Vaish but no anyone named the applicant in said case crime and till submission of the CD No. 72, dated 02.09.2021 prepared by him, the name of the applicant was not came in light. The typed copy of the CD-72 dated 02.09.2021 of the Case Crime No. 107 of 2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That later the investigating officer, during course of investigating officer went to the Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh on 03.09.2021 and met with the Doodhnath Singh Yadav, Station House Officer of said Police Station, who told the name of the applicant and stated that one accused Guddu Singh and the applicant alongwith other accused were operating the factory of adulterated liquor and several first information reports have been lodged against the said them. The typed copy of the CD-73 dated 03.09.2021 of the Case Crime No. 107 of 2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the applicant is falsely implicated in several cases lodged against the applicant, which the applicant has not committed any offense. The details of the case, which are lodged against the applicant, as per best knowledge of the applicant are as under:- Case Crime No. 48 of 2021 under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, Police Station - Hathigawan District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 25.01.2022 passed by the court below. Case Crime No. 49 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60(2), 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 06.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 50 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60(2), 60A, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 07.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 124 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60A, 60 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 16.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 125 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60A, 60 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 16.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 412 of 2021 under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 registered at Police Station – Kunda, District– Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 05.03.2022 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 107 of 2021 under Sections 302, 307, 120B, 34, 272, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and 60 of U.P. Excise Act registered at Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Ayodhya, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 22.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 121 of 2021 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act registered at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail vide order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the court below. Case Crime No. 208 of 2021 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 486, 487, 272 of I.P.C., 60, 60A, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, which has been lodged by the concerned police, when the applicant is in jail, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 07.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. That the aforesaid 8 cases are recently lodged against the applicant under the political pressure. Case Crime No. 15 of 2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the investigation is going on. Case Crime No. 517 of 2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 registered at Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raebareli, in which the applicant has been granted bail vide order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the court below. Case Crime No. 17 of 2016 under Section 135 of The Electricity Act registered at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has paid the bill but the concerned police in malafide manner submitted the charge sheet against the applicant. Case Crime No. 178 of 2014 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273, 427 of I.P.C., 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 3/4 of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 registered at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the charge sheet has been submitted by concerned police and the applicant is exonerated from the said case crime as he was falsely implicated in case. Case Crime No. 44 of 2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910 registered at Police Station – Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the charge sheet has been submitted by concerned police and the applicant is exonerated from the said case crime as he was falsely implicated in case. Case Crime No. 513 of 2010 under Sections 307, 323, 325, 364, 395, 427 of I.P.C. and 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act registered at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 18.02.2011 by this Hon'ble High Court. The photocopies of the bail order passed by the court below and this Hon'ble High Court alongwith other related documents of the applicant are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this application. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is neither member of alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involved any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not committed any offence for his economical and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under the threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. The police for showing there good work falsely implicated the applicant in the said case crime. That the real fact is that the applicant is innocent and belongs to a respected family and has good reputation being national player of volleyball. That the applicant was serving to the Central Government and was posted as Point-man, at Northern Railways, District – Sultanpur. The photo/type copy of the certificate issued by the railway authority on 15.04.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this application. That the applicant had shifted to Lucknow along with his family since long back and he rarely visits his village. That the children of the applicant are studying in class IX & IV City Montessori School, Indira Nagar, Lucknow and due to false implication in said case crime, the career of the children gone in dark. That the applicant was National Player of Volleyball and won several awards and lastly he was participated in 31st National Games, Punjab – 2001, in which he secured Silver Medal. The photocopies of the certificates related to the volleyball are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this application. That the entire case has been made and based against the applicant only on information of the police informer, which is not reliable as nothing is supported to prosecution story. That informant working for the present local Member of the Parliament of the ruling party due to political vendetta, he has been falsely implicated in the case crime. That in result of the above, the informant falsely implicates the applicant, in the said crime for ulterior motive, which is baseless and illegal as the applicant is not involved in any criminal activity as alleged against him. That the applicant is in jail since 17.01.2023 after his surrender, without committing any offence as alleged against him. That the applicant does not committed any offence for his economical and physical benefit. The applicant is not convicted previously in any case crime. The allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged, hence no offence under Sections 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 relating to Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Ayodhya, is made against him. That the applicant had moved his bail application bearing number 140 of 2023 before the Special Judge (Gangster) Additional Session judge, Ayodhya and same has been rejected on 31.01.2023. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 31.01.2023 passed by the court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That the applicant is previously not convicted by any court of law. That the applicant further declares in compliance of the Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that the applicant is committed any offense as alleged in the first information report and also he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail, if so granted by this Hon'ble High Court. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive which given in case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish personal bond and sureties to the entire satisfaction before the court, if the bail is granted to him. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial. |
I, Durga Bux Singh aged about 50 years son of Shri Satya Dev Singh resident of 3/344, Vishwash Khand – 3, Police Station - Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Religion – Hindu, Occupation – Business, Education – Graduate, do hereby solemnly affirm and states on oath as under :- That the deponent is cousin brother of applicant and doing pairvi of Applicant in the above noted case and duly authorized by him for filing instant application before the Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is first bail of the applicant filed before this Hon’ble Court and no other bail application on same cause of action is filed or pending in any court of law. That on 10.12.2021 at about 23.22 Hours, the informant Shri Pradeep Kumar, In-Charge Station House Officer, Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh lodged a first information report against 10 persons including the applicant at Case Crime No. 412 of 2021 under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh. The certified and typed copy of the first information report dated 10.12.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the applicant is gang leader of a gang, who is committing the offences in organized manner regularly as they are habitual, for their economic benefit and due to their terror no one can dare to speak against them. That prior to lodging the aforesaid case crime against the applicant, the gang chart has been approved by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh on 07.12.2021. The photo and typed copy of the gang chart is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is totally innocent and does not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report by the informant. That the informant in order to showing his good and hard work, falsely implicate the applicant in several case crimes, which are pending before him and thereafter finally lodged the said first information report dated 10.12.2021 under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act, The two cases mentioned in the gang chart are as below:- Case Crime No. 124 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60A, 60 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 16.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 125 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60A, 60 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 16.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. The photocopies of Bail orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court are being annexed herewith as Annexure No.3 to this affidavit. That the cases mentioned in the gang chart, name of the applicant came in light on the information given by the informer. It is also relevant to mention that the applicant has no concern with the adulterated liquor and no recovery has been made from the applicant. That the applicant is falsely implicated in several cases lodged against the applicant, which the applicant has not committed any offense. The details of the case, which are lodged against the applicant, as per best knowledge of the applicant are as under:- Case Crime No. 48 of 2021 under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, Police Station - Hathigawan District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 25.01.2022 passed by the court below. Case Crime No. 49 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60(2), 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 06.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 50 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60(2), 60A, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 07.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 124 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60A, 60 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 16.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 125 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60A, 60 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 16.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 107 of 2021 under Sections 302, 307, 120B, 34, 272, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and 60 of U.P. Excise Act registered at Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Ayodhya, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 22.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 121 of 2021 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act registered at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail vide order dated ………. passed by the court below. Case Crime No. 208 of 2021 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 486, 487, 272 of I.P.C., 60, 60A, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, which has been lodged by the concerned police, when the applicant is in jail, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 07.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. That the aforesaid 8 cases are recently lodged against the applicant under the political pressure. Case Crime No. 15 of 2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the investigation is going on. Case Crime No. 517 of 2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 registered at Police Station – Mil Area, District – Raebareli, in which the applicant has been granted bail vide order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the court below. Case Crime No. 17 of 2016 under Section 135 The Electricity Act registered at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has paid the bill but the concerned police in malafide manner submitted the charge sheet against the applicant. Case Crime No. 178 of 2014 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273, 427 of I.P.C., 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 3/4 of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 registered at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the charge sheet has been submitted by concerned police and the applicant is exonerated from the said case crime as he was falsely implicated in case. Case Crime No. 44 of 2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910 registered at Police Station – Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the charge sheet has been submitted by concerned police and the applicant is exonerated from the said case crime as he was falsely implicated in case. Case Crime No. 513 of 2010 under Sections 307, 323, 325, 364, 395, 427 of I.P.C. and 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act registered at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 18.02.2011 by this Hon'ble High Court. The photocopies of the bail order passed by the court below and this Hon'ble High Court alongwith other related documents of the applicant are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this application. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is neither member of alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involved any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not committed any offence for his economical and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under the threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. The police for showing there good work falsely implicated the applicant in the said case crime. That the real fact is that the applicant is innocent and belongs to a respected family and has good reputation being national player of volleyball. That the applicant was serving to the Central Government and was posted as Point-man, at Northern Railways, District – Sultanpur. The photo/type copy of the certificate issued by the railway authority on 15.04.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this application. That the applicant had shifted to Lucknow along with his family since long back and he rarely visits his village. That the children of the applicant are studying in class VIII & III City Montessori School, Indira Nagar, Lucknow and due to false implication in said case crime, the career of the children gone in dark. That the applicant was National Player of Volleyball and won several awards and lastly he was participated in 31st National Games, Punjab – 2001, in which he secured Silver Medal. The photocopies of the certificates related to the volleyball are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this application. That the entire case has been made and based against the applicant only on information of the police informer, which is not reliable as nothing is supported to prosecution story. That informant working for the present local Member of the Parliament of the ruling party due to political vendetta, he has been falsely implicated in the case crime. That in result of the above, the informant falsely implicates the applicant, in the said crime for ulterior motive, which is baseless and illegal as the applicant is not involved in any criminal activity as alleged against him. That the applicant is in jail since 08.09.2021 without committing any offence as alleged against him. That the applicant does not committed any offence for his economical and physical benefit. The applicant is not convicted previously in any case crime. The allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged, hence no offence under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 relating to Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, is made against him. That the applicant had moved his bail application bearing number 321 of 2022 before the Additional Session judge/Special Judge (Gangster), Room No.5, Pratapgarh and same has been rejected on 08.02.2022. The free copy of the bail rejection order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That the applicant is previously not convicted by any court of law. That the applicant further declares in compliance of the Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that the applicant is committed any offense as alleged in the first information report and also he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail, if so granted by this Hon'ble High Court. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive which given in case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish personal bond and sureties to the entire satisfaction before the court, if the bail is granted to him. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial. |
I, Durga Bux Singh aged about 50 years son of Shri Satya Dev Singh resident of 3/344, Vishwash Khand – 3, Police Station - Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Religion – Hindu, Occupation – Business, Education – Graduate, do hereby solemnly affirm and states on oath as under :- That the deponent is cousin brother of applicant and doing pairvi of Applicant in the above noted case and duly authorized by him for filing instant application before the Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is first bail of the applicant filed before this Hon’ble Court and no other bail application on same cause of action is filed or pending in any court of law. That on 10.12.2021 at about 23.22 Hours, the informant Shri Pradeep Kumar, In-Charge Station House Officer, Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh lodged a first information report against 10 persons including the applicant at Case Crime No. 412 of 2021 under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh. The certified and typed copy of the first information report dated 10.12.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the applicant is gang leader of a gang, who is committing the offences in organized manner regularly as they are habitual, for their economic benefit and due to their terror no one can dare to speak against them. That prior to lodging the aforesaid case crime against the applicant, the gang chart has been approved by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh on 07.12.2021. The photo and typed copy of the gang chart is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is totally innocent and does not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report by the informant. That the informant in order to showing his good and hard work, falsely implicate the applicant in several case crimes, which are pending before him and thereafter finally lodged the said first information report dated 10.12.2021 under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act, The two cases mentioned in the gang chart are as below:- Case Crime No. 124 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60A, 60 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 16.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 125 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60A, 60 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 16.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. The photocopies of Bail orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court are being annexed herewith as Annexure No.3 to this affidavit. That the cases mentioned in the gang chart, name of the applicant came in light on the information given by the informer. It is also relevant to mention that the applicant has no concern with the adulterated liquor and no recovery has been made from the applicant. That the applicant is falsely implicated in several cases lodged against the applicant, which the applicant has not committed any offense. The details of the case, which are lodged against the applicant, as per best knowledge of the applicant are as under:- Case Crime No. 48 of 2021 under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, Police Station - Hathigawan District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 25.01.2022 passed by the court below. Case Crime No. 49 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60(2), 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 06.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 50 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60(2), 60A, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 07.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 124 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60A, 60 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 16.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 125 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60A, 60 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 16.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 107 of 2021 under Sections 302, 307, 120B, 34, 272, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and 60 of U.P. Excise Act registered at Police Station – Gossainganj, District – Ayodhya, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 22.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 121 of 2021 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act registered at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail vide order dated ………. passed by the court below. Case Crime No. 208 of 2021 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 486, 487, 272 of I.P.C., 60, 60A, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh, which has been lodged by the concerned police, when the applicant is in jail, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 07.12.2021 by this Hon'ble High Court. That the aforesaid 8 cases are recently lodged against the applicant under the political pressure. Case Crime No. 15 of 2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the investigation is going on. Case Crime No. 517 of 2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 registered at Police Station – Mil Area, District – Raebareli, in which the applicant has been granted bail vide order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the court below. Case Crime No. 17 of 2016 under Section 135 The Electricity Act registered at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has paid the bill but the concerned police in malafide manner submitted the charge sheet against the applicant. Case Crime No. 178 of 2014 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273, 427 of I.P.C., 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 3/4 of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 registered at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the charge sheet has been submitted by concerned police and the applicant is exonerated from the said case crime as he was falsely implicated in case. Case Crime No. 44 of 2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910 registered at Police Station – Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the charge sheet has been submitted by concerned police and the applicant is exonerated from the said case crime as he was falsely implicated in case. Case Crime No. 513 of 2010 under Sections 307, 323, 325, 364, 395, 427 of I.P.C. and 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act registered at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 18.02.2011 by this Hon'ble High Court. The photocopies of the bail order passed by the court below and this Hon'ble High Court alongwith other related documents of the applicant are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this application. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is neither member of alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involved any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not committed any offence for his economical and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under the threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. The police for showing there good work falsely implicated the applicant in the said case crime. That the real fact is that the applicant is innocent and belongs to a respected family and has good reputation being national player of volleyball. That the applicant was serving to the Central Government and was posted as Point-man, at Northern Railways, District – Sultanpur. The photo/type copy of the certificate issued by the railway authority on 15.04.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this application. That the applicant had shifted to Lucknow along with his family since long back and he rarely visits his village. That the children of the applicant are studying in class VIII & III City Montessori School, Indira Nagar, Lucknow and due to false implication in said case crime, the career of the children gone in dark. That the applicant was National Player of Volleyball and won several awards and lastly he was participated in 31st National Games, Punjab – 2001, in which he secured Silver Medal. The photocopies of the certificates related to the volleyball are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this application. That the entire case has been made and based against the applicant only on information of the police informer, which is not reliable as nothing is supported to prosecution story. That informant working for the present local Member of the Parliament of the ruling party due to political vendetta, he has been falsely implicated in the case crime. That in result of the above, the informant falsely implicates the applicant, in the said crime for ulterior motive, which is baseless and illegal as the applicant is not involved in any criminal activity as alleged against him. That the applicant is in jail since 08.09.2021 without committing any offence as alleged against him. That the applicant does not committed any offence for his economical and physical benefit. The applicant is not convicted previously in any case crime. The allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged, hence no offence under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 relating to Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, is made against him. That the applicant had moved his bail application bearing number 321 of 2022 before the Additional Session judge/Special Judge (Gangster), Room No.5, Pratapgarh and same has been rejected on 08.02.2022. The free copy of the bail rejection order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That the applicant is previously not convicted by any court of law. That the applicant further declares in compliance of the Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that the applicant is committed any offense as alleged in the first information report and also he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail, if so granted by this Hon'ble High Court. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive which given in case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish personal bond and sureties to the entire satisfaction before the court, if the bail is granted to him. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial. |
I, Prem Dutt Pachauri aged about 63 years son Shri Shiv Charan Lal Pachauri resident of Village – Chachipura Khander, Police Station – Fatehabad, District - Agra, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the father of the applicant/pairokar in above noted application and duly authorized for swearing affidavit on his behalf and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID of the deponent is affixed on the affidavit and his ID proof is enclosed with the affidavit. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application pending before this or rejected by this . That brief facts of the case is that; on 25.09.2019 at 23.36 hours the informant namely Dr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Circle Officer, Circle - Sahibabad, District – Ghaziabad, lodged a first information report bearing Case Crime No. 422 of 2019 under Sections 409 of I.P.C. and 7/13 The Anti Corruption (Prevention) Act, 1988 against the applicant and 6 others with regard to grabbing of the recovered money from the accused persons. The photo/typed copy of the first information report lodged by the informant on 25.09.2019 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That allegation levelled in the first information report lodged by the informant is that in night of the 24/25.09.2019, the two accused of the case crime 176 of 2019 lodged under Section 409 of IPC at Police Station – Station Link Road, District – Ghaziabad have been arrested in raid, which was conducted the IO of the said case crime. During said raid Rs. 14,81,500/- & Rs. 31,00,000/- recovered by the IO of the case crime. But during the questioning by the informant, the accused said they both have approximately Rs. 1.15-1.25 Cror. Thereafter the informant lodged the first information report against the applicant and others for missing of Rs. 70-80 lacs. That on very same i.e. on 25.09.2019, the statement of the informant has been recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which the informant almost repeated his first information report. In addition to that he has got permission from the higher official for lodging first information report against the applicant and others after initial investigation. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 25.09.2019 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no concerned with the alleged incident which has been took place at time raid in connection with case crime 176 of 2019 lodged under Section 409 of IPC at Police Station – Station Link Road, District – Ghaziabad. That real story is that the applicant has no any relation with said crime as alleged against him by the informant & investigating officer of the case crime. That the informant has directed vide order dated 23.09.2019 the applicant to appear before the Information Commission at Lucknow on 25.09.2019. The photocopy of the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That in pursuant to the order dated 23.04.2019, the applicant went to the office of the Police Line, Ghaziabad through his private vehicle No. UP 14 – EC – 0393 and collected the requisite paper on 24.09.2019 near about 14.30 hours. That after collection of the relevant papers, the applicant moved to Lucknow but prior to that he went to his uncle’s house at Fetehabad, Agra. Meanwhile the Smt. Laxmi Singh Chauhan Station House Officer, Police Station – Station Link Road, District – Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘SHO’) called the applicant about 05.17 PM for becoming the part and parcel of the raid, which has to be conducted at Delhi in connection of the case crime 176 of 2019 lodged under Section 409 of IPC at Police Station – Station Link Road, District – Ghaziabad. At that moment as the applicant was moving to Lucknow he replied her that he is moving to Lucknow in pursuant to the order passed by the informant. The applicant further send his location to the SHO on his WhatsApp number. That the applicant was continuously moving with his private vehicle No. UP 14 – EC – 0393 on 24.09.2019 and crossed Yamuna Expressway on 24.09.2019 at 06.17.53PM. The photocopy of the toll plaza reports of the vehicle No. UP 14 – EC – 0393 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That the near about 06.51.15 AM on 25.09.2019 reached to the nearby Lucknow to appear before the Hon'ble Information Commission. The applicant has exit the Agra Expressway with his private vehicle No. UP 14 – EC – 0393 with benefit of exemption of toll tax being police officer. The photocopy of the toll receipt dated 25.09.2019 along with the photograph of the vehicle is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the applicant has appeared before the Hon'ble Information Commission in Appeal No. S-10-825/A/2018 (Hazi Arif Vs First Appellate Officer, SSP, Ghaziabad) and submitted the compliance report dated 24.09.2019 before the Hon'ble Commission on 25.09.2019 and put his signature on the order sheet of the Hon'ble Commission on behalf of the First Appellate Officer. The photocopy of the compliance order dated 24.09.2019 and the order sheet dated 25.09.2019 containing the signature of the applicant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That here it relevant to mention that the applicant was not present at Police Station – Station Link Road, District – Ghaziabad since 24.09.2019 about 14.00 hours and the said fact is also well known by the SHO as she herself directed the applicant to appear before the Hon'ble Information Commission, Lucknow but the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case crime. That despite knowing that the applicant is not at Police Station – Station Link Road, District – Ghaziabad but vide perusal of the contents of serial No. 2 of CD-35 dated 25.09.2019, it is mentioned that the vide GD entry No. 10 dated 24.09.2019, the applicant along with other police personnel exit on 19.03 hours vide Rapat No. 32 dated 24.09.2019 and returned on 20.00 hours and later on vide Rapat No. 39 dated 24.09.2019 at 21.05 again exit with the SHO and others for raid in connection with the case crime 176 of 2019 lodged under Section 409 of IPC at Police Station – Station Link Road, District – Ghaziabad. That thereafter the raid has been conducted by the SHO and other team members at Delhi, in which the applicant was not member of the said raid team and recovered the amount of & 14,81,500/- from arrested accused of the of the case crime 176 of 2019 and recovery memo have been prepared. The photocopy of the recovery memo dated 25.09.2019 relating to the amount 14,81,500/- is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That on bare perusal of the recovery memo it is very clear that on one recovery memo the signature of the applicant has been contained while another has not. Here it is relevant to mention that the applicant was not present at time of raid but his signature has been made by the raiding team members for their good faith. That according the recovery memo dated 25.09.2019, the applicant and a constable have been sent to the concerned police station along with the alleged money, while at that time the applicant was moving to Lucknow. That thereafter vide G.D. No. 4 at 03.04 hours dated 25.09.2019 mentioned the returning of the applicant along with constable have been entered at 03.04 hours on 25.09.2019 along with the arrested accused and recovered money from them. That thereafter another raid has been conducted by the SHO and other raid team at Delhi, in which from arrested accused of the of the case crime 176 of 2019 Rs. 31,00,000/- has been recovered. The photocopy of the recovery memo relating to amount Rs. 31,00,000/- is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this affidavit. That thereafter vide G.D. No. 6 dated 25.09.2019 at 04.27 hours mentioned the returning of the SHO along with raiding team has been returned along with the arrested accused and recovered money from them. That thereafter the informant has informed by the SHO with regard to said raid and recovery of the money and arrested accused then the informant came at concerned Police Station and took statement of the accused persons, who stated that they have about 1.15-1.25 Crore rupees while the raid team shown recovery of Rs. 45,81,500/-. That the informant, when came to know that the recovery amount is lesser than actual amount and about 70-80 lacs rupees is missing, then he informed to his higher officers with said regard. That the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad directed the informant on 25.09.2019 to conduct an inquiry with regard to raid conducted in case crime 176 of 2019 by the SHO and missing of Rs. 70-80 lacs. That the informant has conducted the inquiry and concluded the same on very same day i.e. 25.09.2019 on the basis of the statements of the raid team, accused statements and on basis of the documents and found guilty for grabbing of the money. That the informant in his report dated 25.09.2019 without going to fact only on the basis of the GD entries, named the applicant and stated that the applicant is also involve in grabbing the money while the applicant was in Lucknow in pursuant to the order dated 23.09.2019, passed by the informant himself. That the SHO and other raid team have also not informed to the informant that the applicant was not the part and parcel of the raid conducted in connection with the case crime No. 176 of 2019. That on inquiry report dated 25.09.2019, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad directed investigating officer lodged the first information report, in pursuant to same, the first information report dated 25.09.2019 lodged against the applicant and others. That it was very surprising that the SHO as well as the informant well known that the applicant was on way of Lucknow to appear before Hon'ble Information Commission but only on basis of the wrong entry in the G.D., the first information report lodged against the applicant. That the father of the applicant, met with the informant and stated abovementioned facts and produced the records to show that the applicant was at Lucknow and appear before Hon'ble Information Commission and requested to them consider the same and submit the final report in favour of the applicant but nothing has been done by them. That the father of the applicant moved a complaint over the Jansunwai portal bearing No. 40014619039336 on 12.11.2019 before the opposite party No. 1 stating that the applicant is being falsely implicated in the case crime and requested to do needful but nothing has been done by him. The photocopy of the complaint moved by the father of the applicant on 12.11.2019 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. That when nothing has been done, then again the father of the applicant moved a complaint over the Jansunwai portal bearing No. 40014619043126 on 18.12.2019 before the state authority mentioned all above noted facts and requested to do needful. The photocopy of the complaint moved by the father of the applicant on 18.12.2019 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That meanwhile against the applicant and other accused, the Non-Bailable Warrant has been issued on 19.10.2019 and proceeding of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been initiated on 08.11.2019. That investigating officer, despite knowing everything mentioned hereinabove, submitted the charge sheet against the applicant along with other accused on 01.01.2020 bearing No. 01 of 2020 under Sections 409 of I.P.C. and 7/13 The Anti Corruption (Prevention) Act, 1988, in very illegal and malafide manner. That the court concerned against the applicant & other accused takes cognizance and passed the impugned summoning order dated 06.01.2020. That it is also relevant to mention here that no case is made out against the applicant as alleged in the first information report and applicant has never committed any offence as alleged. That nothing has been recovered from the applicant’s possession with regard to impugned first information report lodged by the informant. That in view of the abovementioned averments, it is clear that the Sections 409 of I.P.C. and 7/13 The Anti Corruption (Prevention) Act, 1988 have not attracted upon the applicant. That it is also relevant to mention here that no case is made out against the applicant as alleged in the said application and applicant has never committed any offence as alleged. That the applicant has surrendered before the competent court on 24.08.2020 and thereafter he has been send to the jail on very same day. That the applicant in jail since 24.08.2020 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That the co-accused including the SHO of the case crime has been released on bail by this Hon'ble High Court passed in various dates, while the applicant is still in jail without committing any offense as alleged against him. The photocopies of the order passed by this Hon'ble High Court are being annexed as Annexure No. 11 to this application. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 2863 of 2020 before Special Judge, Special Court No. 2, (Corruption Prevention Act), Meerut and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 08.09.2020. The free certified copy of the order dated 08.09.2020 passed by court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 12 to this application. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Prmila Yadav aged about 22 years daughter of Shri Badri Prasad Yadav resident of Village – Tirchha Peeng, Kunda, Police Station - Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Illiterate, Occupation – Agricultural labour, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the sister/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to doing pairavi and files the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and her photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief facts of the case is that; on 02.07.2022, Shri Ayodhya Prasad son of Late Gayadeen resident of Village Tirchha, Police Station - Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) lodged a first information report bearing Case Crime No. 169 of 2022 under Sections 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 427 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh against the applicant and his brothers of the applicant and two unknown persons with regard to an attempt to murder of the husband of the informant by firing upon him with regarding incident dated 25.06.2022. The photo/typed copy of the first information report dated 02.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That the prosecution of the informant in nutshell is that on 25.06.2022 around 07.30 hours, the applicant and his brother were in a property dispute trying to take possession of the informant’s land and protested the same, the applicant and his brothers have beaten the informant and others by lathi, danda, iron rod. That the alleged incident took place as the informant on 25.06.2022 but the first information report has been lodged on 02.07.2022 i.e. more than 7 days delay, without giving any explanation with regard to the delay caused in lodging FIR, which is questionable and doubtful as the informant aforesaid FIR on basis of legal advice to harass the applicant and his family members and also for blackmailing for money. That initially the injured persons have been brought for their medical at C.H.C. Kunda, Pratapgarh on 25.06.2022 around 10.30 hours, where their medical reports have been prepared and referred to S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj. The photo/typed copies of the medical reports dated 25.06.2022 of the injured are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That thereafter, the injured have brought to S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj on the very same day i.e. 25.06.2022, where the C.T. Scan of all three injured persons have been conducted. The photo/ typed copies of the S.T. Scan reports of the injured persons dated 25.06.2022 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That on a bare perusal of the medical reports of the injured person, they seem to be forged and fabricated so for concern to the S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj as the 2 C.T. Scan report has been handwritten while one is computerized. That after about two months the C.T. Scan of the injured person, the supplementary medical report of two injured were prepared on 06.08.2022 and about four months later the supplementary medical of the third injured was prepared on 01.10.2022 by the C.H.C., Kunda, Pratapgarh. The photo/ typed copies of the supplementary medical reports of the injured dated 06.08.2022 & 01.10.2022 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. th That the statement of the informant has been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the concerned police on 03.07.2022, in which he almost repeated his first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 03.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the statements of the injured were also recorded by the concerned police on 25.07.2022 and 24.09.2022 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which she almost repeated the statement of the informant. The typed copy of the statements of the injured are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the version of the injured has not collaborated with the medical report as the injured sustained injuries. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant and informant are residents of the same village and have a dispute regarding the land. That the informant is arrogant person and has enmity with some other villagers, as a result of the same on 25.06.2022, the informant and others fought with other, and they sustained injuries but later after well plan the informant cooked a false and fabricated story to falsely implicate the applicant and his brothers in the said case crime. That here it is relevant to mention that the applicant and his brothers were not in the village at the time of the incident and they were in Punjab, where they were working since long back. That the applicant and his brothers have been arrested by the concerned police on 11.08.2022, when the applicant and his brothers were retruned to their village on occation of the Rakshabandhan, which has been itself clered by the arresting memo. That there is no independent witness of the case crime, which also creat doubts upon the prosecution story. That it is also relevant to mention here that no case is made out against the applicant as alleged in the said application and the applicant has never committed any offence as alleged. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant was falsely implicated by the informant in said case crime with the collusion of the concerned police. That the applicant has no concern with the said offence committed with the informant but then he was falsely implicated in said case crime. That there is no credible evidence on record, which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed this crime in question and the evidence available on record, itself shows that no prima facie offence under Sections 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 427, 325 of I.P.C. registered, in the interest of Justice. is made out against the applicant. That without proper investigation of the case crime, the investigating officer has submitted the charge against the applicant and his brothers bearing charge sheet No. 228 of 2022 under Section 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 427, 325 of I.P.C. on 03.10.2022 That neither any evidence was found against the applicant nor has any motive been assigned to the applicant in the present case except general allegations against the applicant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated and has no involvement in the said case as alleged in the first information report. That apart of the instant case, which has been lodged by the informant on basis of the fact, there is no criminal history of the applicant. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 3759 of 2022 before Additional Session Judge, Room No. 3, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 17.01.2023. The free certified copy of the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.08.2022 without committing any offense as alleged by the informant. That there is no possibility of the applicant’s conviction because he has not committed the crime in question as alleged by the informant. That the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection to Case Crime No. 169 of 2022 under Sections 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 427, 325 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of Justice during the pendency of case. |
I, Nagendra Pratap Singh aged about 37 years son of Shri Awadhesh Pratap Singh Resident of Village – Nauriha, Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to doing pairavi and files the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief facts of the case is that; on 07.04.2006, the informant Shiv Mohan Singh resident of Shri Chandra Pal Singh resident of Village - Nevani Narai, Police Station - Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh lodged a first information report bearing Case Crime No. 19 of 2006 under Section 307 I.P.C. at Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh against the applicant/petitioner with regard to attempt to murder of the opposite party No. 2 by firing three rounds with 15 Bore country made pistol (Katta) on 06.04.2006. The photo/typed copy of the first information report dated 07.04.2006 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That the medical of the injured/informant was conducted initially at Community Heath Centre, Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh on 06.04.2006 and thereafter his medical conducted at S. R. N. Hospital, Allahabad. The photo/typed copy of the medical reports of the injured/informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That the statement of the informant has been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the concerned police in which he repeated his first information version after modified his story to prove his allegation. The photocopy of the statement of the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That after lodging the first information report the investigating officer after proper investigation i.e. on basis of statements of the witnesses & other evidences, submitted the final report bearing No. 09 of 2006 dated 11.07.2011 in favour of the applicant. The photo/typed copy of the final report dated 11.07.2006 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That thereafter the informant against the final report dated 11.07.2006 moved protest application before the court concerned on 30.10.2006. The opposite party No. 2 made several allegations upon the investigating officer on false and frivolous basis. That upon said protest application, after hearing to the parties concerned, the court concerned vide its order dated 18.04.2007 quashed the final report dated 11.07.2006 directed to investigate the matter under Section 190(1)B of Cr.P.C.. The photocopy of the order dated 18.04.2007 passed by the court concerned is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the informant, lodged the said first information report and later on filed protest application against final report dated 11.07.2006 only for the harassing to the applicant and his family members and try to blackmail. That the summoning order dated 18.06.2007 has never been served upon the applicant thus he was not aware about the said criminal proceeding. Meanwhile the learned court below imitated the proceeding under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. against the applicant on 07.09.2017. That the applicant challenged the summoning dated 18.06.2007 as well as Non Bail Warrant order dated 07.09.2017 issued by the learned court below before this Hon'ble High Court by filing Crl. Misc. Case No. 2479 (A-482) of 2018 (Rajesh Kumar Pandey alias Napoleon Vs State of U.P. and another). That aforesaid case has been decided by this Hon'ble High Court on 26.04.2018 and directed the applicant to surrender before the court concerned and moved bail application and such application would be decided by the court concerned under the law laid down in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009(3) ADJ, 322 (SC). The photocopy of the order dated 26.04.2018 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That in pursuant to directions of this Hon'ble High Court the applicant surrendered before the court concerned and the court concerned granted interim bail to the applicant but later on the bail application has been rejected by the court. That it is also relevant to mention here that no case is made out against the applicant as alleged in the said application and applicant has never committed any offence as alleged. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant was falsely implicated by the informant in said case crime with collusion of the concerned police. That the applicant has no concerned with said offence committed with the informant but the he was falsely implicate in said case crime. That there is no credible evidence on record, which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed this crime in question and the evidence available on record, itself shows that no prima facie offence under Sections 307 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That neither any evidence was found against the applicant nor has any motive been assigned to the applicant in the present case except general allegations against the applicant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated and has no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 772 of 2018 before 1st Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge, Human Rights and POSCO Act, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 05.10.2018. The free copy and certified copy of the order dated 05.10.2018 passed by court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 7 to this application. That the learned 1st Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge, Human Rights and POSCO Act on basis of criminal history rejected the bail application of the applicant, which is as under: Case Crime No. 19 of 2006 under Sections 307 of IPC at Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant is in jail. Case Crime No. 17 of 2005 under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC at Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant is enlarged on bail and trail is going on. Case Crime No. 47 of 2006 under Sections 323, 504 of IPC at Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, with this regard, the applicant has no any information. Case Crime No. 124 of 2007 under Sections 307 of IPC at Police Station – Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant acquittal by the court concerned. Case Crime No. 126 of 2007 under Sections 25 of Arms Act at Police Station – Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant acquittal by the court concerned. Case Crime No. 91 of 2008 under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant acquittal by the court concerned. The photocopy of the acquittal order passed by court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 8 to this application. Case Crime No. 58 of 2009 under Sections 110G of Cr.P.C. at Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, the said proceeding is windup. Case Crime No. 23 of 2011 under Sections 110G of Cr.P.C. at Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, the said proceeding is windup. Case Crime No. 139 of 2012 under Sections 110G of Cr.P.C. at Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, the said proceeding is windup. The serial No. iv & v of the above list were lodged by the concerned police falsely showing the applicant was involve in police encounter. That the applicant in jail since 05.10.2018 without committing any offence as alleged against the applicant by the informant. That there is no possibility of the applicant’s conviction because he has not committed the crime in question as alleged by the informant. That the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Ram Awadh aged about 66 years son of Shri Budhu resident of Village – Karmajitpur, Dileeppur, Police Station – Kandhai, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Illiterate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the father/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to doing pairavi and files the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to him as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief facts of the case is that; on 13.07.2022, the informant Smt. Pooja Verma wife of Manish Verma resident of Village - Karmajeetpur, Police Station - Kandhai, District – Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) lodged a first information report bearing Case Crime No. 303 of 2022 under Sections 307, 504, 506 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Kandhai, District – Pratapgarh against the brothers of the applicant and two unknown persons with regard to attempt to murder of the husband of the informant by firing upon him with regarding to incident dated 12.07.2022. The photo/typed copy of the first information report dated 13.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.07.2022 without committing any offense as alleged by the informant. That the prosecution of the informant is nutshell is that on 12.07.2022 around 19.30 hours, the brother of the applicant called the husband of the informant. Thereafter the informant heard a gunfire then he heard that her husband has been injured and the brothers of the applicant and two unknown were involve in said incident. That the applicant is not named in the first information report by the informant. That the medical of the injured/informant was conducted initially at District Hospital, Pratapgarh on 12.07.2022. According to the medical report of the injured, he sustained two injuries i. on nose and ii. on chest. The photo/typed copy of the medical report dated 12.07.2022 of the injured is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That the statement of the informant has been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the concerned police on 13.07.2022, in which she changed the version first information report and named the applicant and stated that the applicant gave a mobile to the informant and talking to her. When the informant made a compliant her husband then the applicant and his brothers gave life threat to her husband and on 12.07.2022 they attempted for murder. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 13.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That the statement of the sister of the injured also recorded by the concerned police on 13.07.2022 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which she almost repeated the statement of the informant. The typed copy of the sister of the injured dated 13.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That thereafter on 14.07.2022, the statement of the injured has been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he stated another motive and stated that the applicant fired by revolver at his forehead. The typed copy of the injured dated 14.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the version of the injured has not collaborated with the medical report as the injured sustained injuries on his nose and chest. If the applicant fired upon the injured at his forehead via close range then it is not possible that the injured sustained injuries on nose and chest. That there it is also relevant to mention that the as per prosecution, the applicant and his brothers themselves brought the injured to the hospital. If the applicant and his brothers have motive to murder the injured then why he was brought to the hospital by the applicant and his brother. That the injured thereafter went to S. R. N. Hospital, Prayagraj 13.07.2022 for his treatment without any advice or reference of the doctor concerned and without getting treatment leave the said hospital. That again on 13.07.2022, the injured admitted himself in Parvati Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Prayagraj, where he mentioned that he sustained the injuries due to road accident and after treatment discharged on 22.07.2022. The photo/typed copy of the admission and discharge summary of the injured issued by Parvati Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Prayagraj being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the applicant and his brothers have been arrested from the District Hospital, Pratapgarh on 13.07.2022 and for showing the good work, the investigating officer shown the arresting of the applicant and his brother from another place on 15.07.2022, in which shown the recovery of the alleged fire arm from the applicant. The photo/typed copy of the recovery cum arrest memo dated 15.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant and injured are residing in same village and having enmity due to village party bandi. That on 12.07.2022, the injured was trying to remove the bullet from the katta at alleged place of incident at that time katta blasted and the injured sustained the injuries and then being villager, the applicant his brother brought him to hospital for the treatment of the injured. That meanwhile the informant lodged the first information report next day i.e. on 13.07.2022 without knowing the fact of the case against the brothers of the applicant. That thereafter the applicant and his brothers have been arrested by the concerned police from hospital and prepared forged recovery memo showing the recovery of the alleged fire arm from the applicant. That it is also relevant to mention here that no case is made out against the applicant as alleged in the said application and applicant has never committed any offence as alleged. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant was falsely implicated by the informant in said case crime with collusion of the concerned police. That the applicant has no concerned with said offence committed with the informant but the he was falsely implicate in said case crime. That there is no credible evidence on record, which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed this crime in question and the evidence available on record, itself shows that no prima facie offence under Sections 307, 504, 506, 120B of IPC registered, in the interest of Justice. is made out against the applicant. That neither any evidence was found against the applicant nor has any motive been assigned to the applicant in the present case except general allegations against the applicant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated and has no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report. That the applicant has been falsely implicated in another case apart from the above mentioned case, which is as under: Case Crime No. 306 of 2022 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 of IPC at Police Station – Kandhai, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted the bail by the court concerned on 05.12.2022. The photocopy of the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 8 to this affidavit. That apart from above mentioned cases there is no criminal history against the applicant. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 2851 of 2022 before Additional Session Judge, Room No. 3, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 28.09.2022. The free copy of the order dated 28.09.2022 misplaced by the deponent therefore certified copy of the order is being annexed with this affidavit. The certified copy of the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. That the applicant in jail since 15.07.2022 without committing any offence as alleged against the applicant by the informant. That there is no possibility of the applicant’s conviction because he has not committed the crime in question as alleged by the informant. That the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection to Case Crime No. 303 of 2022 under Sections 307, 504, 506, 120B of IPC registered at Police Station – Kandhai, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of Justice during pendency of case. |
I, Dashrath aged about 42 years son of Shri Ram Das Resident of Village – Bisara, Kalli Pashchim, Police Station – P.G.I., District – Lucknow, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Labour, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the relative/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to doing pairavi and files the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the applicant and 3 other persons on 09.07.2017 by informant namely Santosh Kumar bearing Case Crime No. 406 of 2017 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., at Police Station – Gossaiganj, District – Lucknow on false, incorrect and baseless grounds. The photo/typed copy of the first information report dated 09.07.2017 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That fact of the first information report dated 09.07.2017 is in nutshell; the informant was sold his land gata No. 1353 situated at Village – Anandipur through his nephew namely Virendra, who is also named accused in said case crime. Thereafter Virendra offered to the informant for purchase of a roadside land, after spot visit the informant was ready to purchase said land in Rs. 5,00,000.00 and given Rs. 1,00,000.00 as advance and after giving another Rs. 1,50.000.00 on 16.04.2016 to the accused Virendra. Then on request of his nephew the informant, paid Rs. 1,00,000.00 on 08.06.2016 and Rs. 1,50,000.00 on 10.10.2016 and that day a deed was executed between the buyer & seller. When the informant gone his purchased land then he was informed by the villagers his purchased land is gram samaj land then the informant complaint to his nephew regarding said issue then his nephew threatened to him for life. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant was falsely implicated by the informant in said case crime with collusion of the concerned police. That the informant in his first information report stated that the accused persons executed sale deed on 10.10.2016 but on bare perusal of the alleged sale deed, it is crystal clear that the alleged sale deed is actually not a sale deed, it is agreement of sale, which is executed on 16.04.2016. The photocopy of the alleged sale deed dated 16.04.2016 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That the statement of the informant was recorded by the concerned police on 11.07.2017, in which the informant stated all most first information report version in improved manner and in detail. The type copy of the statement of the informant dated 09.07.2017 given to the concerned police is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the informant in his statement stated that the applicant himself admitted he was involve in said case crime and received the Rs. 52,500.00 and he has given in writing to the informant on 04.07.2017 as he will pay Rs. 52,500.00 on 07.07.2017. That the real story of the case is that so far concerned to the applicant is that; the applicant has no concerned with the said alleged incident. The applicant and another accused Virendra i.e. nephew of the informant are known to each other being resident of same hamlet and also gone at house of the accuse Virendra at several occasions. That it was purely co-incident as at time of execution of agreement on 16.04.2016, the applicant was met at Registrar Office, with the accused Virendra and informant and stayed with them sometime. That later on when the fraud of the accused Virendra comes out at that moment the informant related the co-incident of dated 16.04.2016 and pressurized to the applicant for confessing his guilty, while he was not committed any offence as alleged against him. That the informant was approached to the concerned police for his help. Then the concerned police called the accused Virendra and the applicant at Police Station on 04.07.2017 and under forcefully taken a hand writing promising note mentioning therein as he was involve in committing said case crime and was given by the accused Virendra Rs. 52,500.00, which will be paid by 07.07.2017 to the informant. That when the applicant not paid Rs. 52,500.00 to the informant then the first information report has been lodged against the applicant without committing any offence as alleged against him. That the concerned police on 17.10.2017 added the Sections 419, 120B and 34 IPC in said case crime. That the applicant has not committed said offence but when the concerned police harassing the applicant and his family thereafter on 08.01.2018, the applicant surrendered before the competent court. That thereafter without proper investigation, ignoring the fact and circumstances of the case, investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against the applicant and 4 other accused on 12.01.2018 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34, 506 I.P.C. bearing charge sheet No. 01 of 2018. That the applicant has no concerned with said fraud committed with the informant but the he was falsely implicate in said case crime. That there is no credible evidence on record, which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed this crime in question and the evidence available on record, itself shows that no prima facie offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34, 506 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That neither any evidence was found against the applicant nor has any motive been assigned to the applicant in the present case except general allegations against the applicant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated and has no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1358 of 2017 before Special Judge, P.C. Act, C.B.I., Room No. 6, Lucknow, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 05.02.2018. The copy of the order dated 05.02.2018 passed by court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That the applicant in jail since 08.01.2018 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant with regard to case crime No. 406 of 2017. That the applicant has no criminal history at all except to this present case. The applicant is law abiding person and having good reputation in the society. That there is no possibility of the applicant’s conviction because he has not committed the crime in question as alleged by the informant. That the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Dashrath aged about 42 years son of Shri Ram Das Resident of Village – Bisara, Kalli Pashchim, Police Station – P.G.I., District – Lucknow, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Labour, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the relative/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to doing pairavi and files the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the applicant and 3 other persons on 09.07.2017 by informant namely Santosh Kumar bearing Case Crime No. 406 of 2017 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., at Police Station – Gossaiganj, District – Lucknow on false, incorrect and baseless grounds. The photo/typed copy of the first information report dated 09.07.2017 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That fact of the first information report dated 09.07.2017 is in nutshell; the informant was sold his land gata No. 1353 situated at Village – Anandipur through his nephew namely Virendra, who is also named accused in said case crime. Thereafter Virendra offered to the informant for purchase of a roadside land, after spot visit the informant was ready to purchase said land in Rs. 5,00,000.00 and given Rs. 1,00,000.00 as advance and after giving another Rs. 1,50.000.00 on 16.04.2016 to the accused Virendra. Then on request of his nephew the informant, paid Rs. 1,00,000.00 on 08.06.2016 and Rs. 1,50,000.00 on 10.10.2016 and that day a deed was executed between the buyer & seller. When the informant gone his purchased land then he was informed by the villagers his purchased land is gram samaj land then the informant complaint to his nephew regarding said issue then his nephew threatened to him for life. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant was falsely implicated by the informant in said case crime with collusion of the concerned police. That the informant in his first information report stated that the accused persons executed sale deed on 10.10.2016 but on bare perusal of the alleged sale deed, it is crystal clear that the alleged sale deed is actually not a sale deed, it is agreement of sale, which is executed on 16.04.2016. The photocopy of the alleged sale deed dated 16.04.2016 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That the statement of the informant was recorded by the concerned police on 11.07.2017, in which the informant stated all most first information report version in improved manner and in detail. The type copy of the statement of the informant dated 09.07.2017 given to the concerned police is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the informant in his statement stated that the applicant himself admitted he was involve in said case crime and received the Rs. 52,500.00 and he has given in writing to the informant on 04.07.2017 as he will pay Rs. 52,500.00 on 07.07.2017. That the real story of the case is that so far concerned to the applicant is that; the applicant has no concerned with the said alleged incident. The applicant and another accused Virendra i.e. nephew of the informant are known to each other being resident of same hamlet and also gone at house of the accuse Virendra at several occasions. That it was purely co-incident as at time of execution of agreement on 16.04.2016, the applicant was met at Registrar Office, with the accused Virendra and informant and stayed with them sometime. That later on when the fraud of the accused Virendra comes out at that moment the informant related the co-incident of dated 16.04.2016 and pressurized to the applicant for confessing his guilty, while he was not committed any offence as alleged against him. That the informant was approached to the concerned police for his help. Then the concerned police called the accused Virendra and the applicant at Police Station on 04.07.2017 and under forcefully taken a hand writing promising note mentioning therein as he was involve in committing said case crime and was given by the accused Virendra Rs. 52,500.00, which will be paid by 07.07.2017 to the informant. That when the applicant not paid Rs. 52,500.00 to the informant then the first information report has been lodged against the applicant without committing any offence as alleged against him. That the concerned police on 17.10.2017 added the Sections 419, 120B and 34 IPC in said case crime. That the applicant has not committed said offence but when the concerned police harassing the applicant and his family thereafter on 17.10.2017, the applicant surrendered before the competent court. That thereafter without proper investigation, ignoring the fact and circumstances of the case, investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against the applicant and 4 other accused on 12.01.2018 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34, 506 I.P.C. bearing charge sheet No. 01 of 2018. That the applicant has no concerned with said fraud committed with the informant but the he was falsely implicate in said case crime. That there is no credible evidence on record, which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed this crime in question and the evidence available on record, itself shows that no prima facie offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34, 506 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That neither any evidence was found against the applicant nor has any motive been assigned to the applicant in the present case except general allegations against the applicant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated and has no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1358 of 2017 before Special Judge, C.B.I., Room No. 3, Lucknow, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 30.03.2018. The copy of the order dated 30.03.2018 passed by court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That it is relevant to mention here that the free copy of the bail rejection order dated 30.03.2018 has been misplaced by the deponent due to which the same has been not brought on record before this Hon'ble High Court. The another certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 30.03.2018 has been annexed with this affidavit. That the applicant in jail since 17.10.2017 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant with regard to case crime No. 406 of 2017. That the applicant has no criminal history at all except to this present case. The applicant is law abiding person and having good reputation in the society. That there is no possibility of the applicant’s conviction because he has not committed the crime in question as alleged by the informant. That the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Prmila Yadav aged about 22 years daughter of Shri Badri Prasad Yadav resident of Village – Tirchha Peeng, Kunda, Peeng, Pratapgarh, Sangramgarh, Police Station - Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Illiterate, Occupation – Agricultural labour, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the sister/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to doing pairavi and files the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and her photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief facts of the case is that; on 02.07.2022, Shri Ayodhya Prasad son of Late Gayadeen resident of Village Tirchha, Police Station - Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) lodged a first information report bearing Case Crime No. 169 of 2022 under Sections 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 427 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh against the applicant and his brothers of the applicant and two unknown persons with regard to an attempt to murder of the husband of the informant by firing upon him with regarding incident dated 25.06.2022. The photo/typed copy of the first information report dated 02.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That the prosecution of the informant in nutshell is that on 25.06.2022 around 07.30 hours, the applicant and his brother were in a property dispute trying to take possession of the informant’s land and protested the same, the applicant and his brothers have beaten the informant and others by lathi, danda, iron rod. That the alleged incident took place as the informant on 25.06.2022 but the first information report has been lodged on 02.07.2022 i.e. more than 7 days delay, without giving any explanation with regard to the delay caused in lodging FIR, which is questionable and doubtful as the informant aforesaid FIR on basis of legal advice to harass the applicant and his family members and also for blackmailing for money. That initially the injured persons have been brought for their medical at C.H.C. Kunda, Pratapgarh on 25.06.2022 around 10.30 hours, where their medical reports have been prepared and referred to S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj. The photo/typed copies of the medical reports dated 25.06.2022 of the injured are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That thereafter, the injured have brought to S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj on the very same day i.e. 25.06.2022, where the C.T. Scan of all three injured persons have been conducted. The photo/ typed copies of the S.T. Scan reports of the injured persons dated 25.06.2022 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That on a bare perusal of the medical reports of the injured person, they seem to be forged and fabricated so for concern to the S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj as the 2 C.T. Scan report has been handwritten while one is computerized. That after about two months the C.T. Scan of the injured person, the supplementary medical report of two injured were prepared on 06.08.2022 and about four months later the supplementary medical of the third injured was prepared on 01.10.2022 by the C.H.C., Kunda, Pratapgarh. The photo/ typed copies of the supplementary medical reports of the injured dated 06.08.2022 & 01.10.2022 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. th That the statement of the informant has been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the concerned police on 03.07.2022, in which he almost repeated his first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 03.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the statements of the injured were also recorded by the concerned police on 25.07.2022 and 24.09.2022 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which she almost repeated the statement of the informant. The typed copy of the statements of the injured are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the version of the injured has not collaborated with the medical report as the injured sustained injuries. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant and informant are residents of the same village and have a dispute regarding the land. That the informant is arrogant person and has enmity with some other villagers, as a result of the same on 25.06.2022, the informant and others fought with other, and they sustained injuries but later after well plan the informant cooked a false and fabricated story to falsely implicate the applicant and his brothers in the said case crime. That here it is relevant to mention that the applicant and his brothers were not in the village at the time of the incident and they were in Punjab, where they were working since long back. That the applicant and his brothers have been arrested by the concerned police on 11.08.2022, when the applicant and his brothers were retruned to their village on occation of the Rakshabandhan, which has been itself clered by the arresting memo. That there is no independent witness of the case crime, which also creat doubts upon the prosecution story. That it is also relevant to mention here that no case is made out against the applicant as alleged in the said application and the applicant has never committed any offence as alleged. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant was falsely implicated by the informant in said case crime with the collusion of the concerned police, Applicant has no concern with the said offence. That there is no credible evidence on record, which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed this crime in question and the evidence available on record, itself shows that no prima facie offence under Sections 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 427, 325 of I.P.C. registered, in the interest of Justice. That without proper investigation of the case crime, the investigating officer has submitted the charge against the applicant and his brothers bearing charge sheet No. 228 of 2022 under Section 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 427, 325 of I.P.C. on 03.10.2022 That neither any evidence was found against the applicant nor has any motive been assigned to the applicant in the present case except general allegations. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated and has no involvement in the said case as alleged in the first information report. That there is no criminal history of the applicant accept present case and another case, case crime no. 27/2022 Under section 323,504,506,IPC Police station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh. We have no knowledge about this aforesaid case. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 3760 of 2022 before Additional Session Judge, Room No. 3, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 17.01.2023. The free certified copy of the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.08.2022 without committing any offense as alleged by the informant. That there is no possibility of the applicant’s conviction because he has not committed the crime in question as alleged by the informant. That the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection to Case Crime No. 169 of 2022 under Sections 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 427, 325 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of Justice during the pendency of case. |
I, Hari Narayan Singh aged about 62 years son of Shri Sangam Singh resident of Village – Muraini, Dhangarh, Kunda District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Former, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the father of the applicant and doing pairvi of the aforesaid case and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photograph of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant on new grounds before this Hon'ble High Court. Earlier the first bail application filed by the applicant bearing Crl. Misc. Case No. 236 (B) of 2022 (Manish Singh Vs State of U.P.) has been rejected on 08.06.2022 by Hon’ble Justice Shri Rajeev Singh ‘J’. This is the second bail application of the applicant before the Hon'ble Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. The photocopy of the order dated 08.06.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That the brief fact of the case for proper adjudication is being before this Hon'ble Court. That the first information report was logged by the Smt. Shivraja Devi wife of Shri Radhey Shyam resident of Village - Muraini, Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) on the 22.05.2020 at 18.15 hours against the applicant and 11 others registered as Case Crime No. 79 of 2020 under Sections 147, 308, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 of IPC relating to Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh. The photo/type copy of the first information report dated 22.05.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That according to the First Information Report lodged by the informant, the prosecution story is in nutshell that on 22.05.2020 around 03.00 PM, the applicant alongwith others including his family members were trying to close the drainage and on protest of the informant they have abused her and beaten her and her family members with lathi, danda and axe. The informant further alleged that when entered the house of one Raj Bahadur for saving her life then the applicant and other accused also entered on said place and beaten her and also broken the several items. That the informant and other persons have injured as stated by her but they have not approached to the doctor for their treatment. The medical of the injured conducted on 23.05.2020 and nothing was serious. The photo/copies of the medical of the informant and others are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That the statement of the informant recorded by the concerned police, in which she almost repeated her first information report. That on Raj Bahadur, who have allegedly beaten by accused persons of the case crime has been died and the post mortem was conducted on 24.05.2020 in which 6 injuries shown and the cause of death ascertained as ‘anti-mortem head injuries’. The photo/typed copy of the post mortem report dated 24.05.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That as per that post mortem, the deceased died due to head injury and the prosecution is silent on this point that who is author of said injury, because general role has been assigned to all the alleged accused persons including the applicant. That the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated by the informant and the said first informant report just to save herself and her family members from the consequences of offences committed by them, regarding which a criminal case has been registered by the wife of the applicant, while no such incident has taken place as alleged by the informant. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant and informant are resident of same village and having dispute regarding sahan, which is going on between them since long back. That 22.05.2020 around 15.00 hours, the uncle of the applicant namely Hari Prasad Singh, who is also accused in the case crime, was cleaning his Sahan land then the informant and her family members tried to restrain him for doing so and also abused him. That the uncle of the applicant, when restrained the informant and her family member from abusing then they assaulted upon him. On alarm of the uncle, the applicant and his father reached to the place of incident to save him then the informant and others again assaulted and for saving the life of his uncle, the applicant and his father entered their house but the informant and others not stopped and entered in the house of the applicant. That on alarm of the applicant, his father & uncle, several villagers reached at the place of incident and pelted stone upon the informant and others for rescuing the applicant and his family members and after sustaining the injuries from the stone pelting of the villagers, the informant and others has run away from the place of incident. That due to assault of the informant and her family members, the applicant and his family members has received grievous injuries. That after the assault of the informant upon the applicant’s family, they approached to concerned police lodging the first information report against the informant and others but due to extraneous reasons, which was offered/received from the informant, the first information report has not lodged. That when nothing was done by the concerned against the informant and others, while the first information report has been lodged against the applicant and others, an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. moved by the wife of the applicant before court concerned. That the aforesaid application of the applicant’s wife allowed and treated as complaint and in which the informant and 12 others have been summoned by the court concerned vide order dated 08.03.2022. The photocopy of the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the court concerned is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the applicant was sent to jail in connection of the said case crime and his bail applications have been rejected from court below and thereafter the applicant has moved bail before this Hon'ble High Court on 05.01.2022 and was pending before this Hon'ble High Court. That the informant for the malicious reasons, on his behest one Amarjeet Patel, who is allegedly injured of the case crime, lodged a first information report against the applicant and another on 21.05.2022 bearing Case Crime No. 434 of 2022 under Sections 506 of IPC registered at Police Station – Kotwali City, District – Pratapgarh stating therein that the applicant has given life threat to her in court premises. The photocopy of the first information report dated 21.05.2022 lodged by Amarjeet Patel is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the informant succeeded in her aim and in result of same on 08.06.2022, this Hon'ble High Court, rejected bail application of the applicant in view of the first information report lodged by Amarjeet Patel and issued direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of six months. That the Case Crime No. 434 of 2022 registered on 21.05.2022 and till date no police report filed before the court concerned and investigation is still going on. The photo/typed copy of the questioner dated 21.09.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only false, incorrect facts and grounds and also concerned police avoiding the truth of case and there is no an evidence against the applicant/accused. That apart from above mentioned, in which the second bail application is being moving by the applicant, two other false and wrong cases have been lodged against the applicant and in counter affidavit filed by the state in earlier bail, showing the 5 cases including the present case crime. The photocopy of the criminal history as given by the state in counter affidavit of Crl. Misc. Case No. 236 of 2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this affidavit. That the case mentioned in the criminal history chart, in first case has been closed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh. S. No. 2 & 3 are proceeding of 110G of Cr.P.C., 4th is present and in 5th case (under Gangster Act), the bail application has not moved on behalf of the applicant. The photocopy of the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. That there is total 23 witnesses of the trial, which is going on before the trial and till date only five witnesses, in which four are witnesses of fact, have been examined and there is no hope to conclude the trial within 6 months as directed by this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 08.06.2022. That the applicant had applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh bearing Bail Application No. 150 of 2021 but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 22.01.2021. The photo copy of bail rejection order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the learned court is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant and their family members in malafide intention. That there is no possibility of the applicant conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That there is no chance of applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is in Jail since 26.05.2020 without committing any offence. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail Case Crime No. 79 of 2020 under Sections 147, 302, 307, 308, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427, 325 of IPC related to the Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, during pendency of case. |
I, Smt. Ruchi Singh aged 23 years wife of Shri Gajendra Pratap Singh resident of Village – Deehanehighat, Birkithai, Tahsil – Sirauli Gauspur, Police Station – Dariyabad, District - Barabanki, Religion – Hindu, Occupation – Housewife, Qualification – Literate, deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under :- That the deponent is the wife of the applicant and doing pairvi of the aforesaid case and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photograph of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant on new grounds before this Hon'ble High Court. Earlier the first bail application filed by the applicant bearing Crl. Misc. Case No. 1712 (B) of 2022 (Chhotu alias Gajendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.) has been rejected on 18.05.2022 by Hon’ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh ‘J’. This is the second bail application of the applicant before the Hon'ble Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. The photocopy of the order dated 18.05.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That the brief fact of the case for proper adjudication is being before this Hon'ble Court. That the first information report was logged by the opposite party No. 2 on the 05.10.2021 at 18.55 hours against the applicant and 3 others registered as Case Crime No. 173 of 2021 under Sections 363, 366 of IPC relating to Police Station – Dariyabad, District – Barabanki regarding the incident dated 27.09.2021. The photo/type copy of the first information report dated 05.10.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That according to the First Information Report lodged by the informant, the prosecution story is in nutshell that on 27.09.2021 around 15.00 hours, the minor daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has been abducted by the applicant and others and the opposite party No. 2 tried his best to find out but his daughter is still missing. That the alleged incident which was occurred on 27.09.2021 at 15.00 hours but the first information report has been lodged after 8 days delayed i.e. on 05.10.2021 at 18.55 hours about without giving any explanation with regard to delay caused in lodging first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 and his family lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he changed the date of alleged incident from 27.09.2021 to 29.09.2021 and rest repeated his first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 recorded by the concerned police is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That the victim i.e. daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has been recovered by the concerned police on 06.10.2021 and her statement has been recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which she stated that the applicant had abducted her on 29.09.2021 and committed rape with her on 01.10.2021. The opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that his daughter abducted on 27.09.2021. The typed copy of the statement of the victim dated 06.10.2021 recorded by the concerned police is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That the medical of the victim has been conducted on 08.10.2022 by the doctor concerned. During medical the victim said that the applicant molest her and she returned to village on 03.10.2021. The age of the victim ascertained 11 years by the doctor concerned and there were no spermatozoa found. The photo/typed copy of the medical of the victim dated 08.10.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is being recorded by the concerned Magistrate on 22.10.2021 i.e. after more than 16 days after alleged recovery of the victim. The victim stated in her statement that after commission of rape with her, she sent to her house on 03.10.2021 by the applicant’s brother. The photo/typed copy of the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 22.10.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the victim was reached to her house on 03.10.2021 but opposite party No. 2 and other have lodged the first information report against the applicant on 05.10.2021, after taking legal advice in which the concerned police helped the opposite party No. 2 for extraneous reasons, which was offered by the real culprit of the case crime. That the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the said first informant report just to take revenge with the applicant due to certain reasons, while no such incident has taken place as alleged by the opposite party No. 2. That the real fact of the case is that one Kuldeep son of Shri Ram Adhar Yadav resident of Village – Deeha hamlet of Kithai, Police Station – Dariyabad, District – Barabanki (hereinafter referred to as ‘main accused’). That there is a land dispute between the family members of the applicant and main accused of the case crime since long back and a civil suit is pending before the court concerned. That the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 having relation with the main accused since long time. That the family members of the main accused several time threaten the applicant’s family to face consequences of dispute, which is pending before them. That when the opposite party No. 2 came to know about the relationship of the main accused and his daughter then the main accused and his family conspire against the applicant and his family along with the opposite party No. 2. That the main accused and his family members paid huge amount to the opposite party No. 2 after selling his land for falsely implicating the applicant in false case of rape allegation. That thereafter the false case has been lodged against the applicant and main accused itself with the help of the concerned police for extraneous reasons. That here it is relevant to mention that if the allegation of the opposite party No. 2 is correct then why the first information report lodged on 03.10.2021, when the victim was returned to home. That the wife of the applicant born a baby girl on 08.07.2021 after major operation and the allegation made against the applicant that he abducted the victim and brought her to Lucknow along with his family i.e. wife, daughter, brother and bhabhi and residing under one roof and raped her. The photocopy of the birth certificate and discharge certificate of the applicant’s wife is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That after the lodging the first information report, the dispute between the applicant’s family and main accused family on high then the concerned police challaned the both parties on 14.10.2021 mentioning therein that the between the both parties has civil dispute. The photocopy of the challan report of the applicant’s and main accused family dated 14.10.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this affidavit. That the name of the main accused has been dropped from the investigation by the investigating officer after taking money from the main accused. In said regard the mother of the applicant moved an application on 11.11.2021 before the higher authorities of the police department and requested therein to transfer the investigation to another investigating agency in the interest of justice. The photocopy of the application moved by the applicant’s mother on 11.11.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. That the victim was with the applicant and others about 8 days as per first information report lodged by the opposite party No. 2 but she has never raised an alarm for her safe guard and even she has never stated before any authority or court that the she was under life threat. That the trial has been initiated in which the statement of the opposite party No. 2 as P.W.- 1 recorded on 05.05.2022, in his chief he stated that the applicant and main accused abducted her daughter and in cross examination he stated as “esjh yMdh dks dqynhi Hkxk dj ugha ys x;s FksA NksVw Hkxk dj ys x;k Fkk esjh yMdh dks iqfyl okys NksVw ds ?kj ij cjken fd;k Fkk” while the concerned police shows the recovery of the victim from Chhoti Miner, Laxmanpur. That the opposite party No. 2 himself admitted that the main accused and victim was in love, he stated as “esjh llqjky dLck bpkSyh esa gS usgk dk ufugky Hkh ogha gSa dqynhi dh Hkh fj”rsnkjh mlh xkao esa gS blfy, dqynhi dk vkuk tkuk usgk ds ikl gksrk jkgk gSA bl dkj.k dqynhi o usgk dk fnyh yxko iSnk gks x;k gSA” The aforesaid admission itself supported the averments of the applicant. The photo/ type copy of the statement of the P.W.-1/ opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim recorded before the trial court on 01.09.2022, in which she stated as “tc eq>s y[kuÅ x;s Fks mlds nwljs fnu esjs lkFk xyr dke fd;k FkkA eSaus NksVw ds HkS;k HkkHkh ls crk;k FkkA fQj NksVw eq>s vius xkao dh rjQ Hkstus yk;s Fks rks ekbuj ij esjs eEeh ikik o iqfyl okys fey x;s Fks rks NksVw eq>s NksMdj Hkkx x;sA ogkW ls iqfyl okys eq>s Fkkus ysdj x;sA” The statement of the victim clearly shows that she was returned to her house on 03.10.2021 and concerned police was also there but the recovery of the victim shown by the concerned police on 06.10.2021 for extraneous reasons. The photo/ typed copy of the statement of the victim given before trial court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 11 to this affidavit. That the conduct of the investigating officer was not fair and he was working for the main accused for extraneous reasons, which is clear by the statement of the victim, who said in her cross examination as “eSa y{e.kiqj ,d ckj Hkh ugha x;hA iqfyl okyksa us crk;k fd txg dk uke y{e.kiqj pkSjkgk ij viuh cjkenxh crkukA tc eSa vius firk dks fey x;h] rc Fkkus ij vk dj fjiksVZ fy[kk;h x;h] esjs firk th ds }kjkA” That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only false, incorrect facts and grounds and also concerned police avoiding the truth of case for extraneous reasons and there is no an evidence against the applicant/accused. That the applicant had applied for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Room No. 44, Barabanki bearing Bail Application No. 2531 of 2021 but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 19.11.2021. The photo copy of bail rejection order dated 19.11.2021 passed by the learned court is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 12 to this affidavit. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the opposite party No. 2 and their family members in malafide intention. That there are only two witnesses of facts i.e. opposite party No. 2 and victim, which has been examined before the trail court. That there is no possibility of the applicant conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That there is no chance of applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is in Jail since 29.10.2021 without committing any offence. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail Case Crime No. 173 of 2021 under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 related to the Police Station – Dariyabad, District – Barabanki, during pendency of case. |
I, Sudhanshu Singh aged about 27 years son of Shri Anil Kumar resident of Village Bhogi saray, Sarai Bhogi District – Jaunpur, Qualification – Intermediate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the brother in law/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application on behalf of the applicant before the Hon'ble Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated in Case Crime No. 81 of 2021 under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh on 09.05.2021 at 22.34 hours against the applicant and one other person. The certified copy/ typed copy of the first information report dated 09.05.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That prior to lodging the first information report the gang chart has been approved by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh on 16.04.2021. The photo/ typed copy of the gang chart approved on 16.04.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That according to the First Information Report, which has been lodged by Shri Tushar Dutt Tyagi, the then S.H.O., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’), the prosecution story is in nutshell that the applicant is the gang leader of a gang, and Santosh Singh is the active member of the gang. The gang is committing the offences in organized manner regularly as they are habitual, for their economic benefit and due to their terror no one can dare to speak against them. That the aforesaid case crime has been lodged against the applicant on basis of the two cases i.e. Case Crime No. 172 of 2019 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of IPC and 60, 60A, U.P. Excise Act and 63 of Copyright Act registered at Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, and Case Crime No. 229 of 2018 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of IPC and 103, 104 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and 63, 60(2)/63 Excise Act registered at Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court on 10.06.2021 and court below on 13.10.2020. The photocopy of the bail orders is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That the name of the applicant is shown at serial No. 01 in the accused column first information report dated 09.05.2021. That the informant falsely implicates the applicant, in the said crime for ulterior motive, which is baseless and illegal as the applicant is not involved in any criminal activity as alleged against him. That the informant in order to showing his good and hard work, falsely implicate the applicant in some case crimes. That the applicant does not committed any offence for his economical and physical benefit. The applicant is not convicted previously in any case crime. The allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That the applicant is in jail since 04.01.2024 without committing any offense as alleged against him. That the applicant has no concerned with any gang in any manner as such the under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 have not applicable against him. That the applicant is falsely implicated in several cases lodged against the applicant, which the applicant has not committed any offense. The details of the case, which are lodged against the applicant, as per best knowledge of the applicant are as under:- Case Crime No. 126 of 2012 under Sections 147, 323, 304, 325, I.P.C registered at Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the court below on 18.12.12 Case Crime No. 131 of 2012 under Sections 110G at Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, in which the case have ended. Case Crime No. 44 of 2009 under Sections 279, 304A, of I.P.C. at Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 16.03.2009 passed by Court below. Case Crime No. 12 of 2022 under Sections 3(1) Gunda Act registered Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh. this case has ended in lapes of time. Case Crime No. 352 of 2020 under Sections 364-A I.P.C at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant granted bail on 07.12.2020 Case Crime No. 678 of 2020 under Sections 60/72 Excise Act 272, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and 63/64 of Copyright Act, 1957 at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the court below on 22.07.2022. The photocopies of the bail orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court & court below are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this application. That apart of abovementioned cases, there are no other criminal history against the applicant. That the applicant had applied for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge (Gangster Act), Room No. 6, Pratapgarh bearing Bail Application No. 74 of 2024 under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 which is rejected by the court concerned without going to fact and records. The free copy of bail rejection order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the court concerned is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report by the informant and he has no concern. That there is no possibility of the applicant’s conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is common man of the society. He has never convicted in any case and not involved in any criminal activities ever. That there is no chance of applicant’s absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the Applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 81 of 2021 under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh during pendency of trial. |
I, Smt. Savita Pal aged about 30 years daughter of Shri Om Prakash wife of Shri Akhilesh Kumar Pal resident of Village – Hudaha, Usari, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Graduation, Occupation – Hosuewife, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the wife/ pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and her photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged against the applicant and 5 other persons on 12.06.2023 at 01.20 hours by the informant namely Abhishek Shau son of Munna Lal resident of Village - Kina Ka Purwa, Bhagwa, Police Station - Kotwali City, District - Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) bearing Case Crime No. 354 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 394 I.P.C. at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh regarding the incident dated 11.06.2023. The certified/ typed copy of the first information report dated 12.06.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 12.06.2023, the prosecution story is in a nutshell that between Smt. Sangeeta Verma resident of the applciant’s village, and father’s brother of the informant namely Anil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was enmity. On 09.06.2023, the buffalo of said Smt. Sangeeta Verma grazed the paddy and thereafter Smt. Sangeeta Verma gives a life threat to the deceased. On 11.06.2023, the applicant along with other accused murdered the deceased by stabbing him. That the body of the deceased was brought to the P. M., Pratapgarh for conducting the post-mortem on 12.06.2023, where the post-mortem was conducted and the cause of the death was ascertained as ‘shock and hemorrhage”. The photo/ typed copy of the post-mortem report dated 12.06.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the version of the first information report is totally false and baseless and the same depends upon the concocted story as such nothing happened as alleged by the informant in her first informant report. That the investigating officer recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 12.06.2023 in which the informant repeated his first information report version and some additional supportive facts to falsely implicate the applicant, which is beyond the belief. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 12.06.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. Tha the informant stated in his statement that he saw that the applicant and other accused stabbed the deceased and again stated that when he went to the roof he saw that the accused threw the dead body of the deceased on the road. That it was very strange that the informant, was seeing the murder of the deceased but kept silent, until the murder of the deceased. That the statements of the two alleged witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 13.06.2023, who supported the prosecution witness, while they are actually not eyewitnesses of the case crime, they are interested witnesses. The typed copy of the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses dated 13.06.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That a forged and fabricated arresting-cum-recovery memo was prepared by the concerned police by which some were accused of the case crime have been arrested. That the confessional statement of the accused namely Smt. Sangeeta Verma has been written/ prepared by the Investigating Officer on 14.06.2023 as per his wish and tried their best to collaborate with the alleged incident and witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. only to prove the offense against the arrested accused and applicant whereas the applicant has not committed any offense. The typed copy of the confessional statement of the arrested accused Smt. Sangeeta Verma dated 14.06.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the confessional statements of the arrested accused were recorded by the concerned police on 22.09.2023 under the life threat, in which the applicant said everything as narrated by the concerned police. That it is most humbly submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated by the informant in the instant case and there is no evidentiary value in the eye of the law relating to the confessional statements given by the arrested accused. That the investigating officer recovered the knife from another accused namely Yogesh Kumar Pal on 15.06.2023. That the real story is that the applicant, informant & Smt. Sangeeta Verma are resident of the village and the applicant also has good family relations with the family of Smt. Sangeeta Verma. That here it is relevant to mention that the deceased was not a good person and he had a lot of emnies in the village and outside. That it is admitted by the informant himself that the deceased has enmity with Smt. Sangeeta Verma, due to which for small reasons, they fought with each other on several occasions. That on 09.06.2023, the deceased and Smt. Sangeeta Verma fought with each other and that moment, they both gave life threats to each other. That on 11.06.2023 the deceased was murdered by some unknown persons due to their enmity but due to extraneous reasons, for taking revenge from Smt. Sangeeta Verma, the informant lodged the first information report against Smt. Sangeeta Verma and her well-wisher. That the informant introduced some alleged eyewitnesses, who are also interested witnesses and well-wishers of the informant and deceased. That thereafter, the investigating officer of the case crime, submitted charge sheet No. 466 of 2023 against the 4 accused on 01.09.2023. Till date the investigation is going on so far related to the applicant. That the deceased was murdered by unknown persons but the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case crime. That due to malafide intention, the informant for extraneous reasons, was falsely implicated in the first information report after knowing everything about the incident, while he has not committed any offense as alleged against him. That the applicant has no concern with the murder of the deceased in any manner as alleged by the informant and the allegation against the applicant and also the prosecution story is totally against truth and is not reliable in manner. That neither the applicant has a motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself shows that no prima-facie offense under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 394 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh is made out against the applicant. That the applicant moved bail application No. 2672 of 2023 before the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 19.10.2023. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this application. That the applicant is in jail since 22.09.2023 without committing any offense. That apart from the above, there is no criminal history against the applicant. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail, in relation to Case Crime No. 354 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 394 of I.P.C. relating to the Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice. |
I, Sonu Singh aged about 22 years son of Surendra Singh resident of Village - Kodrajit, Police Station - Baghrai, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is cousin brother of applicant and doing pairvi of applicant in the above noted case duly authorized by him and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photograph of the deponent is being pated on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is first bail application on behalf of the applicant before the and not other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant have falsely been implicated in case crime No. 100 of 2015 under section 304 I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Baghrai, District – Pratapgarh on 04.07.2015 at 23:45 hours, against the applicant and one other person. The first information report is lodged by son of the deceased namely Shri Arun Singh. The true photo/type copy of the first information report dated 04.07.2015 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That the informant stated in his first information report that during the occasion of the “Panapuri”, which in organized by the Awadhesh Singh in his house. The several persons have been invited. The informant and his father namely Virendra Pratap Singh (hereinafter referred to as deceased) also invited. At that time the Rajesh Singh (who is also named in first information report) and Sintoo Singh was discussing in regard to the Pradhan election, suddenly in provocation of the Rajesh Singh, the applicant fired on Sintoo Singh but bullet hit the deceased. That the body of the deceased was send for the post mortem on 05.07.2015 at District Hospital, Pratapgarh wherein the post mortem was done by doctors. The photo/type copy of the post mortem report dated 05.07.2015 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That according to the post mortem report the five injuries found on the body of the deceased as below: Multiple wound of entry of size .5*.5cm on Left face 2, Neck 2, Left shoulder 2, Chest 4, abdomen 5, muscle entry deep 55cm * 30cm 14 pills are recovered and sealed. That the concerned police went to the alleged incident place and prepare the site plan. On perusal of the site plan it is clear that the prosecution story is not supported the case of the information. The informant stated in his first information report, at the door step of the Rajesh, where the “Panapuri” fest was running, the alleged incident occurred but site plan shows the deceased and applicant about 70 feet away from the “Panapuri” fest. The photo/type copy of the site plan dated 05.07.2015 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That the inquest report has been prepared by the concerned police on 05.07.2015 about 08.20 hours. That the statement of the informant has been recorded by the concerned police under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 05.07.2015 and therein the informant repeated his first information report version in another manner but soul of the first information report in his statement. The type copy of the statement of the informant dated 05.07.2015 is being annexed herewith collectively as Annexure No. 4 to this Affidavit. That on 07.07.2015, the further statement has been recorded by the concerned police and therein he change his statement and alleged as the Rajesh Singh has enmity with family of the informant because in year of 2006 the brother of the informant lodged a first information report against Rajesh Singh under Section 307 of I.P.C. as case crime No. 151 of 2006 at Police Station - Baghrai. Due to which, being the applicant is supporter of the Rajesh Singh and on provocation of him, the applicant fired on father of the applicant. The type copy of the further statement of the informant dated 07.07.2015 is being annexed herewith collectively as Annexure No. 5 to this Affidavit. That after the further statement of the informant the Sections has been altered 304 to 302, 3 of I.P.C.. That as per prosecution story the alleged incident occurred in public place during the “Panapuri” fest but only two eye witness has been assigned by the informant, who are interested witnesses. That it is also questionable if Rajesh Singh and family of the informant has enmity then why the deceased and informant participating in the “Panapuri” fest. That on 21.07.2015, the concerned police arrested the applicant from his house but showing good work of them, prepared a forged arresting memo and also prepared a forged and fabricated recovery memo of the Katta. That in meantime, the informant moved an application before the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh along with his affidavit and 11 other persons affidavit in regard to deleting the name of the another accused Rajesh Singh, from the first information report dated 04.07.2015. That thereafter again, further statement of the informant has been recorded on 22.07.2015 and informant again changed his statement and state that at time of the incident, Rajesh Singh is not present on incident place. The name of the Rajesh Singh has been falsely implicated in the first information report dated 04.07.2015 on influence of the some villagers. The photo/type copy of the further statement dated 22.07.2015 of the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this Affidavit. That the informant has not reliable person as he is regularly changing his statements and as such the prosecution story is unbelievable and also the first information report lodged by the informant is questionable. That after that suddenly several eve witnesses of the case came before the concerned police, who are also give affidavit before the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh in regard non presence of another accused at time of alleged incident and repeat the further statement of the informant dated 22.07.2015 as the Rajesh Singh was present at time of incident and the applicant is fired upon the deceased. That role of the concerned police is also questionable as the statement of the witnesses namely Ranjeet Bahadur Singh and Roshan Singh not recorded by him till arresting of the applicant. After arresting the applicant on 22.07.2015 the statement of the alleged eyewitnesses recorded by the police and the both alleged eyewitnesses supported the story of the informant, which has been given by him in his further statement dated 21.07.2015. The photo/type copy of the statements of the eyewitnesses dated 22.07.2015 is being annexed herewith collectively as Annexure No. 7 to this Affidavit. That the investing officer submitted the charge sheet before the court concerned on 02.09.2015 bearing No. 56 of 2015, Police Station – Baghrai, District – Pratapgarh without considering the fact and reality of the case only against the applicant. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of case and there is no an evidence against the applicant/accused. That neither the applicant has motive nor has any motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question, even each and every time the informant himself change the motive of the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidences available on record itself show that no prima-facie offence under section 302 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive which given in case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has no reason to murder the deceased. That there is no possibility of the applicant conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is common man of the society. That the prosecution story does not supports the evidences available on record as the no source of light present at the alleged incident place. That against the applicant some cases are lodged and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. Case crime No. 158 of 2006 under Section 147/148/149/307/504/506 IPC & 7 CLA Act at Police Station – Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh, in said case nothing has been found against the applicant. Case crime No. 178 of 2006 under Section 10/116 Cr.P.C. at Police Station – Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh. Case crime No. 104 of 2007 under Section 307 IPC & 7 CLA Act at Police Station – Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh. Case crime No. 106 of 2007 under Section 25 Arms Act at Police Station – Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh, in said case the applicant enlarged on bail by the court concerned. Case crime No. 178 of 2006 under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gunda Act at Police Station – Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh. NCR Case No. 43 of 2008 under Section 323/504 IPC at Police Station – Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh. NCR Case No. 82 of 2008 under Section 323/504 IPC at Police Station – Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh. Case crime No. 145 of 2008 under Section 147/307/504/506 IPC at Police Station – Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh, in said case the applicant enlarged on bail by the court concerned. Case crime No. 171 of 2008 Gangster Act at Police Station – Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh, in said case the applicant enlarged on bail by the court concerned. NCR Case No. 148 of 2008 under Section 323/504/506 IPC at Police Station – Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh. Case crime No. 248 of 2008 under Section 307 IPC at Police Station – Jethwara, District- Pratapgarh, in said case the applicant enlarged on bail by the court concerned. Case crime No. 396 of 2008 under Section 25 Arms Act at Police Station – Jethwara, District- Pratapgarh, in said case the applicant enlarged on bail by the court concerned. Case crime No. 98 of 2008 under Section 302 IPC at Police Station – Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh, in said case the applicant enlarged on bail by the court concerned. Case crime No. 263 of 2010 under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gunda Act at Police Station – Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh. Case crime No. 30 of 2010 under Section 25 Arms Act at Police Station – Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh, in said case the applicant enlarged on bail by the court concerned. Case crime No. 108 of 2010 under Section 25 Arms Act at Police Station – Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh, in said case the applicant enlarged on bail by the court concerned. That the applicant had applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 18.08.2015. The certified copy of bail rejection order dated 18.08.2015 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this affidavit. That there is no chance of applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant/accused is in Jail since 21.07.2015. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. |
I, Aman Singh aged about 28 years son of Shri jai Bahadur Singh, resident of Village – Kalapur, Police Station – Lalganj, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – _____________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the brother/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and her photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the 2 persons including the applicant on 28.10.2020 at 17.35 hours by the informant namely Ajay Singh under Sections 302 I.P.C. at Police Station – Udaypur, District – Pratapgarh regarding murder of his son namely Nitish only on basis of wrong, false and presumption, with regard to incident dated 24.10.2020. The certified/ photo/ typed copy of the first information report dated 28.10.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 24.10.2020 the son of the informant namely Nitish (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) went to the house of the applicant for money but as the deceased has love relation with one Moni due to which deceased was murdered by applicant and another accused Dharmendra Bahadur Singh @ Jokhu by firearm nearby the Sai rever. That the aforesaid first information report lodged after 4 days of the alleged incident without giving any explanation of delay, which itself creates doubts upon the persecution story. That the body of the deceased seen by one Ram Manohar resident of Village – Pathariya, Police Station – Udaypur, District – Pratapgarh, who informed the concerned police with said regard on 26.10.2020. That the inquest report of the deceased body was prepared by the concerned police on 26.10.2020 in presence of several villagers as unknown dead body. The photo/typed copy of the inquest report dated 26.10.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the body of deceased was brought to the District Hospital, Pratapgarh for conducting post mortem on 27.10.2020, where the post mortem was conducted and the cause of the death ascertained as ‘Shock and hemorrhage and head injuries following firearm injury.”. The photo/ typed copy of the post mortem report dated 27.10.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the version of the first information report is totally false and baseless and same depends upon concocted story as such nothing happened as alleged by the informant in his first informant report. That the investigating officer recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 28.10.2020 in which the informant changed his first information report version and state that the applicant and another murdered the deceased by shooting him and thrown his body in Sai river, which itself false, incorrect and on the basis of presumption. The informant further stated that Moni has informed him with regard to murder of the deceased. The type copy of the statement of the informant dated 28.10.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That on the applicant was arrested by the concerned police on 27.10.2020 by the concerned police but for showing his good work, his arresting was shown in forged and fabricated arresting memo dated 28.10.2020. That the confessional statement of the applicant has been recorded by the concerned police on 29.10.2020 under the life threat, in which the applicant said everything as narrated by the concerned police. The type copy of the confessional statement of the applicant date 29.10.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the statement of the one Smt. Shanti Devi, who is mother-in-law of Moni, has been recorded by the concerned police on 30.10.2020, in which she also stated that the applicant has love relation with Moni and he was obsessed with her due to which after the marriage of Moni, he always tried to met her. The deceased was several time tired to convinced to breakup the relation with Moni but he tried to continue the relationship with Moni due to which he was murdered. The typed copy of the statement of the mother-in-law of Moni dated 30.10.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the statement of the Moni, with whom the deceased has love relation, recorded by the concerned police on 23.01.2021, in which she admitted that the deceased was at her home on 24.10.2020 and she herself informed the informant to stop the deceased otherwise it will not good for him. Typed copy of the statement of Moni dated 23.01.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That it is also unbelievable as stated by the concerned police regarding the recovery of the piece of the shirt of the deceased, while as per concerned police, the applicant has murdered the deceased after well thought then there is no chance to kept the piece of shirt of the deceased. That the real story is that the deceased the resident of the state of Bihar and her sister has been married with one relative namely Prince of the applicant. That the deceased was having one sided love with the cousin sister of the applicant namely Moni and due to which he frequently visited the District – Pratapgarh. That the marriage of Moni solemnized by her parents but the deceased was obsessed with Moni and he started go to her marital house. After complaint of Moni, the deceased several times restrained to visit the marital house of Moni and do not ruin her marital life but he never stopped. That on 24.10.2020, the deceased went to the marital house of Moni and was caught by the some villagers and another accused who is Mama of the applicant, informed about that. The another accused requested to the applicant to reach as soon as marital house of Moni and brought the deceased as he will be late to reach the marital house of Moni. That the applicant picked-up the deceased from marital house of Moni and shifted in the vehicle of another accused to send him back to Bihar. The deceased journey to bus stop, requested another accused to stop for peeing and after stopping the vehicle the deceased runway. That the applicant was informed by his Mama regarding escaping of the deceased then they informed the marital house of Moni, if the deceased came then kindly informed. That thereafter on 26.10.2020, a unknown body recovered by the concerned police and on 27.10.2020, the informant identify the body and moved an application before the concerned police stated therein that he has indentify the unknown body as the deceased so do needful. The photo/copy of the application moved by the informant dated 27.10.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That thereafter on the basis of the legal advice, the applicant and another accused has been falsely implicated in the said crime case on 28.10.2020 without any rhyme and reason. That thereafter without proper investigation and without considering the fact of the case the charge sheet submitted against the applicant and another under Sections 302, 201 of IPC on 23.01.2021. That the deceased has been murdered by anonymous persons but the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case crime as they have several times approached to the informant and complaint against him son. That due to malafide intention, the informant for his self-satisfaction lodged the first information report against the applicant, while he has not committed any offense as alleged against him. That the applicant has no concerned with the murder of the deceased in any manner as alleged by the concerned police and allegation against the applicant and also the prosecution story is totally against truth and same is not reliable in manner. That neither the applicant has motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. That there is no credible evidence on record which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Sections 302, 328, 201 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Udaypur, District – Pratapgarh is made out against the applicant. That the applicant moved bail application No. 311 of 2021 before the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 10.02.2021. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 10.02.2021 passed by court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 10 to this application. That the applicant is in jail since 29.10.2020 without committing any offense. That the applicant has no criminal history ever. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial. |
I, Ram Bahadur aged about 47 years son of Late Hanuman, resident of Village – Mulihamau, Police Station – Bhadokhar, District – Raebareli, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the uncle/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and her photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the 3 persons including the applicant on 03.12.2021 at 23.50 hours by the informant namely Shiv Balak Yadav son of Late Hublal resident of Village – Pure Ranbahadur hamlet of Tikari Dandu, Police Station – Deeh, District – Raebareli (hereinafter referred to as ‘informatn’) bearing Case Crime No. 459 of 2021 under Sections 302 I.P.C. at Police Station – Deeh, District – Raebareli regarding murder of his son namely Ankit Yadav only on basis of wrong, false and presumption. The certified/ typed copy of the first information report dated 03.12.2021 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 03.12.2021, the son of the informant namely Ankit Yadav (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was murdered by the applicant alongwith his wife and brother by assault of axe and body of deceased in house of the applicant. That the inquest report of the deceased body was prepared by the concerned police on 04.12.2021 in presence of several villagers in which they opined that the deceased has murdered by the applicant alongwith wife and brother by assault of axe. That the body of deceased was brought to the P. M., Raebareli for conducting post mortem on 04.12.2021, where the post mortem was conducted and the cause of the death ascertained as ‘Asphyxia.”. The photo/ typed copy of the post mortem report dated 04.12.2021 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the version of the first information report is totally false and baseless and same depends upon concocted story as such nothing happened as alleged by the informant in his first informant report. That the investigating officer recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 04.12.2021 in which the informant repeated his first information report version and tried to implicate the applicant in said case crime, which itself false, incorrect and on the basis of presumption. The type copy of the statement of the informant dated 04.12.2021 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That on the applicant was arrested by the concerned police on 03.12.2021 by the concerned police when he was come to the house of the applicant, on call of the applicant’s wife, who is herself accused in the said case crime. That the applicant has been arrested by the concerned police on 03.12.2021 and also the concerned police recovered the axe and maflar on very same day. The typed copy of the arresting/recovery memo dated 03.12.2021 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That thereafter during time of preparation of arresting/recovery memo, Section 34 of IPC has been added in the case crime by the investigating officer. That the confessional statement of the applicant has been recorded by the concerned police on 04.12.2021 under the life threat, in which the applicant said everything as narrated by the concerned police. That the statements of the witnesses, who are brother of the informant, has been recorded by the concerned police on 04.12.2021, in which they stated that the deceased have illicit relation with the applicant’s wife and she has several time tired to convinced to break up the relation but deceased tried to continue the relationship with her due to which he was murdered. The typed copy of the statement of the witnesses dated 04.12.2021 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That it is also unbelievable as stated by the concerned police regarding the recovery of the alleged murder axe and maflar and the applicant has murdered the deceased after well thought alongwith the other accused then there is no chance to kept the recovered item of the deceased nor call made to the concerned police. That the real story is that the deceased having the illicit relation with the wife of the applicant since long back and when the applicant came to know that then she tendered apology and promised to not meet again with the deceased. That the deceased was obsessed and always tried to meet with the applicant’s wife and pressurized her to continue their relation, for which applicant’s wife was not ready. That on 03.12.2021, the deceased entered in the house of the applicant alongwith 2 others and the deceased tried to commit rape with applicant’s wife, on her alarm, two persons runaway and the applicant for saving his wife, pulled the maflar of the deceased, meanwhile the deceased fallen, where he sustained the head injuries. That the wife of the applicant, in the moment of heat, hit the deceased with stick. That there was no intension for killing the deceased, he was hit by the applicant’s wife in the heat of the moment and the applicant tried to save her wife from the deceased attack therefore in good faith, the call has been made to 112 on 03.12.2021 at 21.52 hours. The typed copy of the statement of PRV commander dated 16.12.2021 is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That thereafter without proper investigation and without considering the fact and reality of the case, the investigating officer of the case crime, submitted the charge sheet No. 11 of 2022 against the applicant and his wife under Sections 302, 34 of IPC on 07.01.2022 and the brother of the applicant has been exonerated from said case crime. That the deceased has been died due to accident but the applicant and his wife has been falsely implicated in the case crime. That due to malafide intention, the informant for his self-satisfaction lodged the first information report against the applicant after knowing everything about the incident, while he has not committed any offense as alleged against him. That the applicant has no concerned with the murder of the deceased in any manner as alleged by the concerned police and allegation against the applicant and also the prosecution story is totally against truth and same is not reliable in manner. That neither the applicant has motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. That there is no credible evidence on record which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Sections 302, 34 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Deeh, District – Raebareli is made out against the applicant. That the applicant moved bail application No. 891 of 2022 before the learned Sessions Judge, Raebareli and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 23.05.2022. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 23.05.2022 passed by court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this application. That the applicant is in jail since 04.12.2021 without committing any offense. That the applicant has no criminal history ever. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail, in relation to Case Crime No. 459 of 2021 under Section 302, 34 of IPC relating to the Police Station – Deeh, District – Raebareli, during pendency of his trial. |
I, Ravendra Pratap Singh aged about 29 years son of Sri Dal Bahadur Singh resident of Dadauli, Post – Raghauli, Police Station – Manikpur, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Graduate, Occupation – Government Servant, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is relative of the applicant and doing pairvi of applicant in the above noted case duly authorized by him and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photograph of the deponent is being pated on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of Voter ID of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is first bail application on behalf of the applicant before the and not other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant have falsely been implicated in case crime No. 07 of 2014 under section 302 I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Manikpur, District – Pratapgarh on 25.01.2014. The first information report is lodged by the brother of deceased namely Dev Prasad Patel. The true photo/type copy of the first information report dated 25.01.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That the according the First Information Report the prosecution story is, the deceased has Tata Magic registration No. UP 32 DN – 3659 and same was operated by the deceased. When on 24.01.2014 the deceased was not come to home then the complainant start searching him. Next morning i.e. 25.01.2014 at 05.30 AM the body of complainant’s brother was found on the seat of driver of his own vehicle at Bhadchak – Dandauli road near Mahauta. There were multiple gun shots injuries shown on the body of the deceased and blood was oozing and some gun shots are also found on front of vehicle. That the complainant lodge the first information report on the suspicious ground due to old enmity with the father of another accused namely Vivek and another person namely Kamlesh. That the first information report lodge against the applicant and three other persons on the suspicious and baseless ground. That the statement of complainant recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on the same day. The compliant supported the first information report version. The type copy of the statement of the complainnat under section 161 Cr.P.c. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the post mortem of the deceased done on 26.01.2014 at , Pratapgarh. As per post mortem report the cause of death of the deceased is comuama and hammarage and shock as a reamly of Antimortem fire arms injury. The true photo/type copy of the post mortem report dated 26.01.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That after two days on 27.01.2014, after lodging the first information and giving the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., the complainant recorded his further statement (Mazeed Bayan) before the investigation officer and build a new prosecution story and stated, time of the incident, one witness namely Dinesh Kumar alias Babloo (brother-in-law of the brother of deceased namely Krishna Kumar Patel) is present and see the incident. That as per information given by the Dinesh Kumar alias Babloo the compliant stated in his further statement that at the time of incident, when the multiple gun shots are fired by the accused persons, at the same time one accused had also injured by the gun shot during the firing but the Dinesh Kumar alias Babloo not identified the injured accused, while the Dinesh Kumar alias Baloo indentified the all four accused by name. The type copy of the further statement (Mazeed Bayan) dated 27.01.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this Affidavit. That the brother of the deceased namely Krishna Kumar Patel also recorded his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. before the authority concerned on 27.01.2014 and stated on 24.01.2014 at the incident place, the deceased and all four accused person are chatting with together and when he ask to the deceased about the meeting then the deceased replies everything is fine and supporting the further statement of the complainant. The type copy of the statement of brother of the deceased dated 27.01.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this Affidavit. That the son of the deceased namely Amarjeet Patel also recorded his statement before the investigating officer on 27.01.2014 under section 161 Cr.P.C. and also supported the statement of his uncle statement namely Krishna Kumar Patel. There was no any change in the both statements except style of stating his statements. The type copy of the statement of son of the deceased Krishna Kumar dated 27.01.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this Affidavit. That the so called eye witness namely Dinesh Kumar alias Babloo recorded his statement before the investigation officer on 29.01.2014 under section 161 Cr.P.C.. The so called eye witness stated in his statement, he was present at the time of the incident i.e. 08.30 PM of 24.01.2014. The so called eye witness identified the accused persons. The type copy of the statement so called eye witness dated 29.01.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this Affidavit. That the applicant is surrendered before the C.J.M., Pratapgarh on 24.03.2014 and applicant sent to jail. That the concerned police take the remand of the applicant granted by the court concerned. Thereafter the police was recovered on the pointing of the applicant one country made Katta (Tamancha) on 03.04.2014. The recovery of the aforesaid Katta (Tamancha) is totally false and baseless; the nothing was recovered from and pointing of the applicant. The photo copy/typed copy of the recovery memo dated 03.04.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this Affidavit. That the first information report lodged against the four persons. After the investigation, the investigation officer filed the charge sheet against the applicant and two other persons in court concerned on 05.05.2014. That the no any specific roll was assigned by the prosecution against the applicant or any accused. That a contradiction in the statement of the so called eyewitness and informant’s statement, according the eyewitness he was seeing the incident at the time of occurrence and he was not informed to police or the informant at that time. That the so called eyewitness has seen the incident at the dark and foggy night of the cold weather, which is highly suspicious. That the so called eyewitness is not disclose the about the incident to anyone till the crimination of the deceased, this is also highly suspicious and same is planted eyewitness after the post mortem of the deceased. That the investigation officer recovered the Katta (Tamancha) only showing the good work of the police department. That the so called eyewitness is stated in his statement he identified the accused persons and during the firing the one accused was injured. But all accused presently in District Jail, Pratapgarh and has not received any fire arm injury. This is unbelievable as the eyewitness stated in his statement. That the so called eyewitness stated in his statement he saw the incident in the front light of the Tata Magic but he not reveal which accused fired his fire arm on the deceased. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that no one saw the occurrence and there is no any eye witness of the case and it is a case of forged and planted eyewitness and evidence and there is no an evidence against the applicant/accused. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report and he has no concern. That there is no possibility of the applicant conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is respectable person of the society. He has never involved in any criminal activities and has no any criminal history. That there is no chance of applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is in Jail since 24.03.2014. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That the applicant had applied for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2 Pratapgarh but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 19.09.2014. The certified copy of bail rejection order dated 19.09.2014 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. That the co-accused namely Vivek Singh alias Vivek Pratap Singh has enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Court order dated 05.09.2014 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3908 (B) of 2014. That the co-accused namely Sonu Singh alias Shashank Pratap Singh has also enlarge on bail by the Hon'ble Court order dated 08.10.2014 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4742 (B) of 2014. The photocopy of the order dated 08.10.2014 passed by Hon'ble Court is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicants be enlarged on bail during pendency of trial. |