The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Amit Pal Singh

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1184 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 9251 OF 2016 ]

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Appellant(s)

VERSUS

AMIT PAL SINGH Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The State is before us, aggrieved by the order of

grant of bail to the respondent. When the matter

came up before this Court, the following order was

passed on 08.05.2017 :-

“The petitioner-State is directed to

get specific written instruction from

the Senior Superintendent of Police,

Kanpur (or any other Superintendent

of Police concerned) regarding the

conduct of the respondent and the

likely time the trial court may take

to conclude the trial.”

Signature Not Verified

3. In response to the above order, the State has Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.08.05 12:54:01 IST Reason:

filed an affidavit dated 13.07.2017. Paragraphs 4 to

9 of the said affidavit read as under :- 2

“4. That in compliance of the

aforementioned order it is submitted

that regarding the conduct of the

accused Respondent/Amit Pal Singh it is

stated that Respondent Amit Pal Singh is

a licensee of shop Gur Ramdas Armoury.

Further it is stated that even in stock

registers it has not been mentioned that

for which State license has been issued

by licensing authorities to whom fire

arms have been sold.

5. The record of sale of arms of Guru

Ram Das Armoury, Kanpur further reveals

that many weapons have been shown to be

sold in the naxalite affected States

like Jharkhand, Bihar and Udhampur under

Jammu and Kashmir State and when enquiry

was made by the Investigating Officer of

case regarding verification of licenses

as many as 26 Arm licenses were not

found in existence upon which weapons

have been shown to be sold.

6. It is further pertinent to state

herein that in the year 2008 co-accused

Mantoo Sharma @Sanjay Singh along with

06 naxalite were arrested at Gandhi

Maidan Patna by the police personnel of 3

Police Station – Gandhi Maidan Patna,

Bihar and during the search and seizure

03 rifles along with vehicle and cash

were recovered from the possession of

co-accused Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh

who was going to sell these rifles to

the naxalites and in his admission he

has admitted that all these rifles were

purchased by him from Guru Ram Das

Armoury, Meston Road, Kanpur, which

belongs to present accused & also that

he is an absconder from Army.

That further the records of Guru Ram

Das Armoury further reveals that

accused was also involved in purchasing

useless fire arms from Bombay and Kanpur

and later on these so purchased useless

fire arms have been re-assembled with

the addition of foreign fire arm parts

and after changing the respective bore

of these fire arms the entry of these

fire arms have been in stock registers

of Guru Ram Das Armoury and later on

these fire arms after change of their

respective bores have been sold to

innocent license holders as well as anti

social elements and some of which were 4

recovered by the Investigating Agency

form the innocent purchasers. The

report of CFSL to this effect was called

and the report of CFSL, CBI, New Delhi

reveals that all these weapons were

improvised.

Therefore, it is most humbly submitted

that Respondent herein has grave nexus

with other accused persons and are in

accomplice in providing illegal weapons

to the Naxalites and hence in view of

such circumstances the bail granted to

the Respondent herein ought to be

cancelled.

7. It is further pertinent to state

herein that accused/applicant was

arrested by the Investigating Agency

after finding his involvement in the

present case however, later on the

accused/applicant along with other

co-accused persons have moved more than

40 applications on different dates just

to avoid framing of charge and it is

only on date charge has been framed

against accused/applicant and other

co-accused persons.

It is pertinent to mention here that 5

the accused was also facing trial under

special provision u/s 2/3 U.P. Ganster

Act in Case Crime No. 4/2013, wherein

the Respondent herein has preferred a

bail application no. 6212 of 2016, which

has already been rejected by the Hon'ble

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow on

14.12.2016 & hence the accused is still

in jail (Annexed as Annexure-12 of

Additional Documents).

8. That it is worthy to mention here

that although vide the impugned order

the accused Respondent herein has been

enlarged on Bail by the Hon'ble High

Court in the present case, but he is

still languishing in Jail in another

Case Crime No. 4/2013, wherein the bail

is rejected by the Hon'ble High Court

vide order dated 14.12.2016.

It is further pertinent to mention

here that in the present case this

Hon'ble Court vide its Order dated

8.10.2014 was pleased to cancel the Bail

of one of the co-accused person i.e.

Guru Charan Singh who also happens to be

the father of the Respondent herein 6

(annexed as Annexure A-2 of Additional

Document.)

9. It is humbly submitted that the

trial is going on in speedy manner on

day to day basis and the same may be

concluded within 6 months. Further it

is stated that there are 13 accused

persons and they are unreasonably

delaying the trial. It is submitted

that Respondent/accused and other

co-accused persons are themselves

responsible in delaying the trial.”

4. Having gone through the impugned order passed by

the High Court and having heard the learned counsel

appearing for the State as well as the learned senior

counsel appearing for the respondent, we are of the

view that the matter needs a fresh look by the High

Court in the light of the affidavit extracted above.

5. Accordingly, without expressing any further

opinion on the merits of the impugned order passed by

the High Court, we set aside the impugned order and

remit the matter to the High Court for fresh

consideration in the light of the affidavit extracted

above.

7

6. Needless to say that the parties will be free to

raise all available contentions before the High

Court. We request the High Court to pass orders

expeditiously and preferably, within a period of

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this Judgment.

7. With the above observations and directions, the

appeal is disposed of.

.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

.......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI ]

New Delhi;

July 18, 2017.