| Prompt: | |
| Generate a Bail Application involving the following key legal details: | |
| - CASE: Crime No. 192 of 2013 | |
| - BAIL APPLICATION: Bail Application No. 6827 of 2013 | |
| - DISTRICT: Not available | |
| --- | |
| Output: | |
| IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, | |
| LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW | |
| Criminal Misc. Case No. (B) of 2014 | |
| Digvijay Singh alias Tufan son of Late Shamsher Singh | |
| resident of Village – Peethapur, Police Station – | |
| Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh | |
| .....Applicant | |
| (In Jail) | |
| Versus | |
| State of U.P. .....Opposite Party | |
| Case Crime No. 192 of 2013 | |
| Under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307/34 | |
| 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. And | |
| Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act | |
| Police Station – Sangrampur | |
| District – Amethi | |
| Order passed by Session Judge, | |
| District – Sultanpur | |
| Bail Application No. 1382/2013 | |
| on 13.09.2013 | |
| IInd APPLICATION FOR BAIL U/s 439 Cr. P.C. | |
| The applicant most respectfully submits as under:- | |
| For the facts and reasons mentioned in accompanying | |
| affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this | |
| Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant the bail | |
| to the applicant in the interest of Justice. | |
| Lucknow (Dr. Gyan Singh) | |
| Advocate | |
| Dated: 2013 Counsel for the Applicant | |
| Note: That this is second bail application. First bail | |
| application No. 6827 of 2013 was rejected by Hon’ble | |
| Arvind Kumar Tripathi II “J” 04.04.2014. | |
| Lucknow (Dr. Gyan Singh) | |
| Advocate | |
| Dated: 2012 Counsel for the Applicant | |
| IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, | |
| LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW | |
| Criminal Misc. Case No. (B)of 2014 | |
| Digvijay Singh alias Tufan | |
| .....Applicant | |
| (In Jail) | |
| Versus | |
| State of Uttar Pradesh .....Opposite Party | |
| AFFIDAVIT | |
| (In support of IInd bail application) | |
| 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 | |
| 1. | |
| 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 | |
| 2. | |
| 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 | |
| 3. | |
| 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 | |
| 4. | |
| 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 | |
| 5. | |
| 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 | |
| 6. | |
| 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. 3 to this affidavit. | |
| That the doctor conducted the autopsy on the body | |
| 7. | |
| 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 | |
| 8. | |
| 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 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 offerthe | |
| 9. | |
| 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 | |
| 10. | |
| 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 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 | |
| 11. | |
| 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 | |
| 12. | |
| 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 | |
| 13. | |
| 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 | |
| 14. | |
| 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 | |
| 15. | |
| 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 | |
| 16. | |
| Tasildar on 30.04.2013 at C.H.C., Amethi. | |
| That the applicant and other co-accused persons | |
| 17. | |
| 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 | |
| 18. | |
| 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 | |
| 19. | |
| against the applicant. | |
| Case crime No. 107 of 1997 under Section 374 | |
| 1. | |
| 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, | |
| 2. | |
| 3223, 504,506 I.P.C., the applicant on bail, case | |
| is pending. | |
| Case is crime No. 143 of 2008 under Section 3 (1) | |
| 3. | |
| Gunda Act withdraw of the notice by the then | |
| District Magitrate. | |
| Case crime No. 148 of 2008 under Section 110 | |
| 4. | |
| Cr.P.C., the proceeding is dropped. The applicant | |
| is on bail and the same is pending. | |
| That the applicant is innocent. The criminal | |
| 20. | |
| 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 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 | |
| 21. | |
| 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 . | |
| 22. | |
| That there is no chance of the applicant absconding | |
| 23. | |
| or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. | |
| That the applicant is ready to furnished the | |
| 24. | |
| 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 | |
| 25. | |
| and necessary in the interest of justice that the | |
| applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of | |
| case. | |
| Lucknow | |
| Date : 2014 Deponent | |
| VERIFICATION | |
| I, the deponent, do hereby verify that the | |
| contents of para Nos. of this affidavit | |
| are true to my personal knowledge and those para Nos. | |
| of the affidavit are based on perusal of record, those | |
| of para Nos. of the | |
| affidavit are based on information received by the | |
| deponent, those of para Nos. of the | |
| affidavit are based on legal advice which all I believe | |
| to be true. No part of its is false and nothing | |
| material has been concealed. So, help me “GOD”. | |
| Lucknow | |
| Date : 2014 Deponent | |
| I, do hereby declare that the person making this | |
| affidavit and alleging himself to be the deponent is | |
| known to me from the perusal of papers and I am | |
| satisfied that he is the same person. | |
| Advocate | |
| Solemnly affirmed before me on | |
| at A.M./P.M. by the deponent, who has been | |
| identified by Sri Prabhat Kumar Mishra, Advocate, High | |
| Court, Lucknow, Bench, Lucknow. Enrollment No. 8078 of | |
| 2011, Address – Village – Purahiya, Nigohan Lucknow. | |
| I, have satisfied my self by examining the deponent | |
| that he understands the contents of this affidavit, | |
| which have been read over and explained by me. | |
| OATH COMMISSIONER | |
| IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, | |
| LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW | |
| Criminal Misc. Case No. (B)of 2014 | |
| Digvijay Singh alias Tufan .Applicant | |
| (In Jail) | |
| Versus | |
| State of Uttar Pradesh .....Opposite Party | |
| INDEX | |
| Sr. | |
| Particulars Page No. | |
| No | |
| Application for bail under section | |
| 439 Cr.P.C. | |
| 1. | |
| Affidavit in support of application | |
| 2. | |
| Annexure No. 1 | |
| 3. | |
| The photo and typed copy of the | |
| first information report dated | |
| 30.04.2013 | |
| Annexure No. 2 | |
| 4. | |
| Photocopy of the letter dated | |
| 19.05.2013 | |
| Annexure No. 3 | |
| 5. | |
| Photocopy of the inquest report | |
| Annexure No. 4 | |
| 6. | |
| Photocopy of the autopsy report | |
| Annexure No. 5 | |
| 7. | |
| Photo and copy of the witnesses | |
| Annexure No. 6 | |
| 8. | |
| Photo copy of the of the case | |
| summary given by the doctor | |
| Siddharth Singh Hospital in | |
| Administration dated 01.05.2013 | |
| Annexure No. 7 | |
| 9. | |
| Photo copy of the statement of | |
| doctor Uday Pratap Singh | |
| Annexure No. 8 | |
| 10. | |
| Photo copy of the recovery memo | |
| Identity proof of the deponent | |
| 11. | |
| Memo | |
| 12. | |
| Lucknow (Dr. Gyan Singh) | |
| Advocate | |
| Dated: 2013 Counsel for the Applicant | |
| Mobile No. 9452226667 | |