Allahabad High Court
Gori Son Of Yameen And Pappu Son Of ... vs State Of U.P. on 24 January, 2007
Author: Ravindra Singh
Bench: Ravindra Singh
JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. This application has been filed by the applicant Gori and Pappu with a prayer that they may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 2273 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 506 and 34 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Nagar district Muzaffarnagar.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that that F.I.R. of this has case been lodged by one Maroof at P.S. Kotwali on 28.10.2006 at 6.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 28.10.2006 since 3.30 p.m. to 3.40 p.m. near Kadir Rana Chowk Khadar Wala, the distance of the police station was about 1 k.m. from the alleged place of occurrence. The applicants co-accused Kadir Rana and co-accused Noor Salim are named in the F.I.R. and two miscreants were unknown. It is alleged that on the day of the alleged occurrence voting for election of Nagar Palika, Muzaffar Nagar was going on in which injured Rashid Siddiqui was candidate from Samajwadi Party for the post of Chairman, there was a candidate from the Lokdal Party also. The co-accused Kadir Rana was the State level leader of Lokdal Party, on various occasions at different polling booth, there had been some altercations between injured Rashid Siddiqui and the co-accused Kadir Rana and the co-accused Kadir Rana. The first informant was driving the vehicle of Rashid Siddiqi in which the deceased Muzaffar Rana Ex-Pradhan, injured Raizul, one gunner Subodh of Rashid namely and injured Rashid Siddiqui were also sitting, they were going towards Prempuri from polling station of Jainbia school, when reached in front of the house of co-accused Kadir Rana at about 3.30 p.m. the co-accused Kadir Rana armed with pistol, co-accused Noor Salim armed with country made pistol, applicants armed with lathi, and two unknown miscreants, who were also armed with lathi met them who were standing there, they intercepted by using lathi blows on the vehicle, thereafter all the occupants of the vehicle were forcibly dragged out one by one, then the co-accused Kadir Rana and co-accused Noor Salim caused fire arm injuries on the person of the deceased Muzaffar Rana, consequently, he became injured the first informant Maroof, Rashid and Riazul were also beaten by lahies when the gunner of Rashid Siddiqui discharged shots in air just to scar away the assailants then the assailants fled away from the place of occurrence. The deceased in an injured condition was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. Thereafter, the first informant went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. of this case. The Post Mortem examination on the body of the deceased was done on 28.10.2006 at 10.45 p.m., as per Post Mortem Examination Report, the deceased has received five ante mortem injuries in which injury no.1 was gun shot wound of entry on the right side of the face, its exit wound was injury No. 2. Injury No. 3 was gun shot wound of entry on the left side of abdomen its exit wound was injury No. 4 and injury No. 5 was abraded contusion on the upper arm.
3. The injured Riazul Hasan was medically examined on 29.10.2006 at about 11.30 a.m. at C.H.C. Khatauli. He had received 2 injuries in which injury No. 1 was abraded contusion over anterior medial aspect of left knee upper joint. Injury No. 2 was complaint of pain from front of right chest and of its right side back. The injured Maroof, first informant, of this case was medically examined on 29.10.2006 at 11.45 a.m. He was having complaint of pain of the left side of upper chest to left nipple and left leg.
4. The injured Rashid Siddiqui was medically examined on 28.10.2006 at about 4.30 p.m. at District Hospial Muzaffarnagar. He had received 2 injuries. Injury No. 1 was contusion 8 cm x 5.5 cm on the back side of the head upper part radish in colour and injury No. 2 was contusion 3 cm x 2.5 cm back of chest middle part radish in colour, he was having complaint of headache and vertigo.
5. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Kamal Kishore Mishra and Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. Sri J.S. Sengar and Kameshwar Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant.
6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that
i) according to the prosecution version also the incident was not pre-intended, it had taken place all of sudden when the vehicle of of injured Rashid Siddiqui reached in front of the house of the co-accused Kadir Rana
ii) the applicant did not cause any injury on the person of the deceased whereas it has been specifically alleged that the injuries on the person of the deceased were caused by the co-accused Kadir Rana and co- accused Noor Salim, the allegation against the applicant is that they were armed with lathies and two unknown miscreants were also armed with lathies, they used lathi blows on the vehicle of the Rashid Siddiqui and they caused injuries on the persons of the first informant Maroof, Riazul Hasan and Rashid Siddiqui, as per medical examination report of Riazul Hasan and Rashid Siddiqui, the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and the injuries were simple in nature and the injured Maroof Rana was having only complaint of pain, no visible injury was seen on his person, the act of the applicants will not go beyond the ambit of the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C.
iii) that there was a cross version of the alleged incident in which one Furkan had received gun shot injury on his left arm he was medically examined on 29.10.2006 at 9.am. at medical college Meerut, his case was referred from C.H.C. Khatauli district Muzaffarnagar. He had received 2 lacerated wound, in which injury no 1 was lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on lateral aspect of left arm, blackening around the wound was present, its exit wound was injury No. 2, which was also lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm on anterior medical aspect of left arm upper part, the injuries were half to one day old caused by discharged of fire arm, its first information report was sent by Mohd. Rashid Rana, uncle of the injured Furkan to the S.H.O. P.S. Kotwali Muzaffarnagar on 28.10.2006 but the cross case was not registered by the police but it was made a part of the first parcha of the case diary of the present case. The injured of the cross case Furkan was initially consulted at C.H.C. Khatauli from where he was referred to the medical college where he was medically examined on 29.10.2006 at 9.00 a.m. the injuries of Furkan has not been explained by the prosecution the prosecution has not come with clean hands.
iv) the I.O. recorded the statement of the first informant on 28.10.2006 who supported the F.I.R. version. Thereafter the I.O. prepared the spot inspection note and after completing certain other formalities, the I.O. recorded the statement of Mohd. Master Kalian, Mohd. Shamshad, Mohd. Saghir Ahmad, Mohd. Ifthekhar, Ali Abbas and Babban, who were either the resident of the same locality or they were present at the alleged place of occurrence, according to their statements also some scuffle and mar-peet was taken place between the supporter of Mohd. Rashid and co-accused Kadir Rana in which the deceased Muzaffarnana received injuries. Therefore, the plea of self defence was supported by them.
v) the F.I.R. of this case is ante timed, it was not in existence at the time of preparation of inquest report, it was not in existence as alleged by the prosecution at 6.30 p.m. on 28.10.2006 because a memo was sent from District Hospital to police station Kotwali mentioning therein that the person namely Muzaffar Rana has been brought dead at 4.15 p.m. on 28.10.2006, it was received at the police station Kotwali on 28.10.2006 at 5.30 p.m. recorded in G.D. No. 25 dated 28.10.2006, as per G.D. entry, some unknown persons were fled away along with the dead body at the stretcher from the hospital, on this information two constables and one Sub-Inspector were sent for necessary action and for preparation of the inquest report, the proceedings of inquest were initiated at 6.45 p.m. on 28.10.2006, the inquest report was prepared by S.S.I. Deepak Malik whereas the time of the alleged F.I.R. has been shown as 6.30 p.m. on 28.10.2006, which shows that Sri Deepak Malik S.S.I, who conducted the proceedings of inquest was having the copy of the F.I.R. and its G.D. entry but in the inquest report there was no reference of the crime number and G.D. entry No. 30 dated 28.10.2006 by which the F.I.R. was registered but the reference of G.D. entry No. 25 was made in the inquest report. From the perusal of the inquest report, it also appear that some necessary entries were made, later on after filling up the blank places, its shows that the F.I.R. was not in existence.
vi) The statement of the injured Mohd. Riazul was recorded on 30.10.2006 at 10.00 and on the same day the statement of constable Subodh Kumar, Gunner of Rashid Siddiqui was recorded by the I.O. but the statement of Rashid Siddiqui was recorded on 5.11.2006. it was the star witness, there is no plausible explanation of delay in recording the statement of above mentioned witnesses including Rashid Siddiqui.
vii) The co-accused Kadir Rana was also provided police security. Seven police persons were dupted for his safety as Sub-Inspector K.P. Nigam, Constable Deepak Malik, Constable Harendra Singh, H.G. Ajeet Singh, H.G. Ranjeet Singh, H.G. Sugar Singh, H.G. Tara Singh, but it is surprising that they were not interrogated by the I.O.
viii) One Constable Anil Kumar Mishra was also interrogated under Section 161 C.P.C. 8.11.2006 but he gave a different version as of Subodh Kumar. He stated that Rashid Siddiqui used to go so fast just to avoid company of another vehicle. He further stated that some scuffle had taken place between both the parties and he tried to save Rashid Siddiqui, according to this statement also there was cross version of the incident and it this state it is very difficult to ascertain that which of the party was the aggressor.
ix) The applicant and other co-accused are falsely implicated under political pressure when threatening was given by the various M.Ps. and M.L.As. belonging to Samajwadi Party to resign from their offices, under their pressure the applicant was arrested.
x) The applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case, even on the basis of allegations the applicants did not cause any injury to the deceased, it can be said that they caused the injuries by their lathies on the persons of the injured, which were simple in nature. Therefore, he may be released on bail.
7. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant that the alleged occurrence has taken place in broad day light on 28.10.2006 since 3.30 to 3.40 p.m., the F.I.R. of this case has been promptly lodged on the same day at 6.30 p.m., the alleged incident is result of a pre-planned scheme on the day of polling by forcibly stopping the vehicle of candidates of rival party, the vehicle was badly damaged by the applicants and two unknown miscreants who were armed with lathies, thereafter, the occupants of the vehicle including the candidate Rashid Siddiqui and the deceased were forcibly dragged out from the vehicle one by one by the applicant and other co-accused persons and the deceased Muzaffar Rana was shot by the co-accused Kadir Rana and Noor Salim. It has been specifically alleged that the applicants caused injuries on the persons of the injured Maroof, Riazul Hasan and Rashid Siddiqui by using lathi blows, who had sustained injuries caused by hard and blunt object, as per medical examination report, the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. According to the medical examination report of Rashid Siddiqui, who was medically examined immediately after the alleged occurrence on 28.10.2006 at about 4.30 p.m. he had sustained injuries on his head and chest. The high-handedness of the applicants and other co-accused persons is too much, they have interrupted the peaceful election process also and to establish their supremacy, they have committed the alleged offence. The vehicle driven by the first informant was badly damaged by the applicants and co-accused by the lathies. The co-accused Kadir Rana, is a very powerful and influential person having criminal background, he was influencing the local administration not to take any action against him and other co-accused because he was a powerful leader of Rastriya Lokdal, party in power of coalition government of State, due to his influence local police was not daring to arrest the accused of this case even no effect was given to the court's order passed under Section 82-83 Cr.P.C. The co-accused Noor Salim is still freely roaming and constantly extending threat to the first informant, of which complaint was made to the S.S.P. Muzaffarnagar on 23.11.2006, but no action was taken on that written complaint, then the first informant filed a writ petition No. 15238 of 2006 before this Court, in which this court was pleased to summon the I.O. of this case for filing the counter affidavit vide order dated 15.12.2006. The applicant Gori is a hardened criminal, having criminal history apart from this case, he was involved in as many as seven criminal cases mentioned as under;
1. Crime No. 672 of 2000 under Section 147, 323, 427 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Muzaffarnagar.
2. Crime No. 32 of 2004 under Section 147, 148, 307, 504 and 506.
3. Crime No. 320/2004 under Section 5/8 C.S. Act and Section 11 Pashu Krurata Adhiniyam, P.S. Kotwali.
4. Crime No. 609 of 2004 under Goonda Act, PS. Kotwali.
5. Crime No. 264 of 2004 under Section 147, 148, 149, 336, 307, 341, 342, 332, 188, 506 and 504 I.P.C.
6. Crime No. 2189 of 2005 under Section 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Muzaffarnagar.
7. Crime No. 648 of 2006 under Section 147, 148, 457, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Muzaffarnagar.
8. It is further submitted that no reliance can be placed on the alleged counter version of the case because as per cross F.I.R. the incidents of cross F.I.R. had occurred at a polling booth where as in the present case the occurrence has taken place near the house of co-accused Kadir Rana where the blood was also found by the I.O. there was no polling booth near the house of co-accused Kadir Rana the deceased was murdered and no such complaint has been made from any polling station to support the cross version, even the injury report of Furkan Rana is not genuine, it is a got up document because Furkan was medically examined on C.H.C. Khatauli district Muzaffarnagar, which is far away 25 k.m. Away from Muzaffarnagar, the medical slip shows that his name was registered as E-667/73/29.10.2006, his case was referred to medical college, Meerut and no injury was noted, which shows that this medical slip was obtained on some other considerations, at that time the alleged injured Furkan Rana was not having any injury but it is also surprising that on 2.11.2006 an application was moved to the medical Superintendent Khatauli district Muzaffarnagar by Mohd. Nazar Khan mentioning therein that medical aid of Furkan Rana was obtained on 28.10.2006 but due to mistake the date 29.10.2006 is mentioned, the same may be corrected but the same was allowed by the medical superintendent C.H.C. Khatauli on the same day, the application for rectifying the mistake of date was deliberately moved to explain the delay of medical examination of Furkan, it is also an indicative of manipulation. If Furkan had received gun shot wound of entry on 28.10.2006 and on the same day he has obtained the medical aid from the C.H.S. Khatauli and was referred to the medical College Meerut he would have gone to the medical college on 28.10.2006, but he went to the medical college on 29.10.2006 at 9.00 a.m., as per his medical examination report, no bandage etc. was not found to show that any medical aid was provided to him, prior the examination. He had received lacerated wounds, having dimension of 1cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on lateral aspect of the left arm, it was having blackening, its exit was injury No. 2. It was very simple injury going through the skin muscles only,it could not be caused as alleged by the cross version in which it was alleged that four persons including the deceased had fired at him, the firing was done from long distance but the injury was having blackening. The cross case was registered on 4.11.2006 which was properly investigated by the I.O. who came to the conclusion that injury report of Furkan Rana was a got up documentschandraramesh4 and the alleged injuries were bogus and false, therefore final r report was submitted, he did not sustain any injury in the alleged incident even he was not present there tit is why he was named in the F.I.R., in such circumstances the prosecution was not under obligation to explain the injuries of Furkan. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. There are injured witnesses to support of the prosecution story. The applicants are also actively involved in committing the alleged offence. The deceased was brought to hospital by S.I. Ravindra Sinchandraramesh4gh and other persons. There is no material to show that the F.I.R. is ante timed. The co-accused Noor Salim is still absconding, their leader is co-accused Kadir Rana who is one of the most powerful person of western Uttar Pradesh, having a criminal background. The alleged offence is grave in nature. In case, applicants are released on bail, they shall tamper with the evidence, therefore, they may not be released on bail.
9. Perused the case diary, bail application, counter affidavit and re-joinder affidavit, considering facts, circumstances of the case, the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants showing their active involvement in commission of alleged offence, and their criminal background, the gravity of the offence which is too much and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicants are not entitled for bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.
10. Accordingly this application is rejected.