The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench recently passed a significant order denying bail to an appellant, Nanku alias Amar Singh, convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. This ruling, made by Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, highlights the court’s view on the active and violent role played by the appellant in a brutal crime that led to the death of a victim, where his participation was deemed integral to the commission of the act.
Case Background
The case, titled Dinesh Verma & Another v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2015, stems from an incident that occurred in 2004. The appellant, Nanku alias Amar Singh, along with three other accused, was implicated in a murder case under sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution alleged that Nanku and his co-accused killed the deceased in a brutal manner in Mohammadpur Khala, District Barabanki, with one co-accused beheading the victim and Nanku using a firearm to deter others from intervening.
The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Manoj Kumar Misra, supported by lawyers Amrendra Kumar, Amresh Kumar, Arshad Hafeez Khan, and others, argued that Nanku was wrongfully convicted and sought his release on the grounds that the case against him lacked substantial evidence.
Legal Issues
The central issues in the appeal revolved around:
1. Credibility of Evidence: The defense argued that the appellant’s conviction was based on uncorroborated testimonies of the victim’s relatives, identified as interested witnesses, and that there was no independent verification.
2. Alleged False Implication: Nanku’s legal team claimed he was falsely implicated without credible or direct evidence linking him to the murder.
3. Role Differentiation Among Accused: The defense highlighted that two other co-convicts, Dinesh Verma and Nafadeen alias Sher Bahadur, were granted bail earlier, arguing that Nanku’s role was not significantly different to deny him the same relief.
4. Right to Bail for Long-term Detention: Nanku’s legal team also invoked the Supreme Court’s precedent in Saudan Singh v. State of U.P., which supports bail for accused persons detained for long periods, citing his ten-year imprisonment as sufficient grounds for bail consideration.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The Court meticulously examined the records, including the testimony of eye-witnesses P.W.-1 Rishi Kumar (the victim’s brother) and P.W.-2 Saroj Verma (the victim’s wife). The testimonies revealed that Nanku had allegedly fired shots in the air to prevent onlookers from rescuing the victim, thus playing an active part in the unlawful assembly and demonstrating a “common object” with other accused to commit the murder.
Important Court Observation: “The present appellant played an active role in the commission of this incident and his conduct reveals that he was sharing common object of unlawful assembly to kill the deceased in a brutal manner,” the court stated, underscoring its rationale for denying bail.
The Court also noted that the appellant’s conduct, as reported in testimonies and corroborated by evidence from the post-mortem report, distinguished his involvement from other accused who had been granted bail. This distinction became pivotal in rejecting the bail application, as the severity of his actions, combined with his role in intimidating witnesses, made him ineligible for release.
Rejecting Nanku’s argument for bail, the Court asserted that the weight of evidence and the accused’s involvement in the “gruesome” act required his continued custody. The judges, however, clarified that this ruling was specific to the bail application and did not reflect on the merits of the case in full.
