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