Mahkar Singh @ Pappu vs State of Uttarakhand

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. (ORAL)

Heard Mr. D.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the applicant and Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder for the

State of Uttarakhand.

The applicant is in jail having been implicated in Case Crime No. 243 of 2014, which has been registered under Sections

147/148/149/307/120B/34/109 of IPC, at Police Station Gangnahar, District Haridwar.

On 05.08.2014, outside the Sub Jail, Roorkee, in broad day light a shootout took place resulting in death of three persons, who belonged to a rival

gang. The incident was allegedly executed by a gang and the victim belonged to rival gang, as is the case of the prosecution. Present applicant is one

of those, who have been arrested in this case and is presently facing trial in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 2015 before 1st Additional Sessions Judge,

Roorkee, District Haridwar.

First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.06.2015. Thereafter after a period of two years, he moved

second bail application, which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 31.08.2017. Order dated 31.08.2017 reads as under:

“Heard Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vivek Pathak, Advocate for the applicant and Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder for

the State.

This is second bail application filed by the applicant seeking regular bail in Case Crime No. 243 of 2014, which has been registered under Sections

147/148,149, 307/302/120B/34/109 of I.P.C. at Police Station Gangnahar, District Haridwar.

First Bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.06.2015. The ground stated by the applicant in second bail

application is that another co-accused, namely, Rakesh Verma has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2016 i.e. after the rejection

of the bail application of the present applicant on 02.06.2015.

The matter relates to a shootout outside the Roorkee jail where three persons were killed on the spot in a gang war. The consideration for grant of

bail to co-accused Rakesh Verma was as follows:

“The applicant was a Deputy Jailer of Roorkee Jail. The crime relates to a shootout outside the Roorkee Jail where three persons were killed on

the spot in a gang war. The deceased were the ones who were just released from the jail. The applicant was the Deputy Jailer in-chare of the

Roorkee Jail. Though, his name did not figure initially, but it had come out during the investigation on the statement of a coaccused. It appears that the

applicant apprehending his arrest also filed the writ petition before this Court, which was rejected and the applicant was directed to surrender before

the court concerned. Consequently, the present applicant surrendered before the court concerned and he was taken into custody on 07.05.2015. His

bail application was filed before this Court in which pleadings have been exchanged.

The fact remains that by now, the charge sheet has been filed and the matter is for framing of the charges before the court concerned. Considering

the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that there is no chance of the present applicant tempering with the evidence and the role

assigned to him is of a conspirator under Section 120B of I.P.C. and the fact that he has already remained in jail for about one year, the applicant has

been able to make out a case for bail. The bail application is accordingly allowed.â€​

On the other hand, the first bail application of the present applicant was rejected by this Court stating as follows:

“The applicant is in jail having been implicated in Case Crime No. 243 of 2014, which has been registered under Sections

147/148/149/307/302/120B/34/109 of I.P.C., at Police Station Gangnahar, District Haridwar.

According to the learned counsel for the applicant the only evidence against the applicant is the statement of co-accused Sunil Rathi. There is no

active role of the applicant. On the other hand, in view of the statement given by the co-accused Sunil Rathi and others, presently it was the applicant

who was a contractor in the jail premises, was involved in the Conspiracy. Moreover, Sri V.K. Gamini, learned Deputy Advocate General states that

in this case three persons have lost their life, and several persons have sustained injuries. Moreover, one of the shooters Amit @ Bhura who was till

recently absconding from the police has recently been arrested.

In view thereof, no case for bail is made out. The bail application is hereby rejected.â€​

This Court is of a considered view that though the incident may be the same, but the circumstances are entirely different. Since, the co-accused has

been granted bail, it cannot be a ground for granting bail to the present applicant on ground of parity under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Second Bail Application stands rejected accordingly. It is, however, made clear that any observations made by this Court shall not prejudice the

case of the applicant either before the trial court or for any other remedy available under the law.

Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial in letter and spirit of Section 309 Cr.P.C. without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any

of the parties.â€​

There are absolutely no new grounds for release of the applicant. The new grounds as alleged that co-accused have been granted bail has already

been considered by this Court while rejecting second bail application of the applicant. From the ordersheet of the trial court, it appear that the trial is

not proceeding as the co-accused who have been granted bail have failed to turn up, which is the main reason why the statement has not been

recorded.

This Court does not find any new or good ground to release the applicant on bail. Consequently, third bail application is rejected.

It is made clear that any observations made by this Court are only for the purposes of disposal of the present bail application. It shall not be taken

into consideration at all in any other proceedings.