Allahabad High Court
Azeem vs State Of U.P. on 19 May, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6982 of 2019 Applicant :- Azeem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jaikaran,Arun Sinha,Girish Kumar Pandey,Salil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhad Pratap Singh,Anil Pratap Singh,Nagendra Singh connected with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8450 of 2020 Applicant :- Manoj Trivedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Sinha,Siddhartha Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amrendra Kumar,Anil Pratap Singh,Nagendra Singh Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7424 of 2019 Applicant :- Kallu Darji @ Saeed Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amrendra Kumar,Anil Pratap Singh,Nagendra Singh Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4795 of 2019 Applicant :- Shaanu @ Mohd. Irshaad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gopesh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Pratap Singh,Nagendra Singh,Ravi Pratap Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
1. Since the First Information Report and the incident are the same in all the four aforesaid bail applications and, therefore, they are being heard and decided by a common order.
2. These four applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.728 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504 IPC, Section 7 Criminal law Amendment Act and Section 27 Arms Act, Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebareli.
3. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant, father of the deceased, lodged the First Information report on 20.11.2018 at 10.45 AM against accused-applicants and two other unknown persons. As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant, his sons, Rinku Singh (deceased) and Ritesh Singh, his nephews, Mrityunjay Singh and Rananjay Singh and his cousin, Suresh Singh in the morning of the date of the incident i.e. 20.11.2018 went to Bhaureshwar Temple to have Darshan and Puja etc. After having Darshan in the Temple, when they came out of the Temple and were standing near the flower shop of Ram Chandra Goswami at around 7.45 AM, at that time, named accused, including the accused-applicants, and two unknown persons armed with fire arms came there and Dharmendra Kumar Mishra @ Pappu Mishra exhorted the others to kill the complainant and his other family members. He said that no one should go alive. On this, all the accused started firing on the complainant side. Rinku Singh received fire arm injuries. However, the other persons could save themselves as they could hid under the tables etc. It was also said that the accused fled from the place of occurrence in Ertiga Car of Dharmendra Kumar Mishra @ Pappu Mishra and on motorcycles having number UP32 ZR 9365, UP32 K 7415 and UP33 BA 3251. The information was given on dial 100. Because of the incident, devotees and the shop owners went helter skelter. The deceased, Rinku Singh was taken to the Trauma Center, Lucknow, where he died. After Rinku Singh died, a complaint was given and the FIR was lodged.
4. Post-mortem report of the deceased would disclose the following ante-mortem injuries on his body:-
"1. A fire arm entry wound of size 1.5 cm x 1 cm x brain cavity deep present on left side of forehead which is 3 cm from medial side of left eyebrow and 6 cm from nose in margin of wound in inverted and irregular, collar of abrasion present around the wound, blackening and tattooing present around wound.
2. A fire arm wound of size 1 cm x 1 cm x brain cavity present just above the medial inner canthus of left eye which is 1 cm below medial end of left eyebrow over margin of wound is inverted and irregular collar of abrasion present around the wound, blackening tattooing present around wound.
3. A fire arm entry wound of size 1 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep present on left side of chest which is 6.5 cm medial left nipple and 8 cm below on supra sternal notech, margin of wound in inverted and irregular collar of abrasion present around wound, blackening and tattooing present around wound.
4. A fire arm entry wound of size .5 cm x .5 cm present on left side of back which 4 cm medial to mid inter line and 9 cm from interior angle of left scapula margin of wound inverted and irregular, blackening and tattooing present around wound, collar of abrasion present around.
5. A fire arm crust would of size 1 cm x 1 cm present left chest wall which is 10 cm medial to left nipple and 8 cm from suprasternal notech and 3.5 cm from injury no.3 margin is averted. Injury nos.4 and 5 correspond to each other on section cutting and probing right wing with pleura, heart with roncardium lacerated about 2 clotted and fluid blood present in chest cavity, brain cavity, fracture frontal bone left frontal and left temporal."
5. Cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6982 of 2019
6. Heard Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Anil Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.
7. Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the whole prosecution story is a false narration of the incident, and the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated. He further submits that the inquest report of the deceased was prepared by the police on 20.11.2018 at 11.45 AM. Ritesh Singh, brother of the deceased, who was allegedly present at the time of incident, was an inquest witness. The said witness did not disclose the names of the accused-applicant and other accused, who had allegedly committed the offence. He, therefore, submits that if the accused-applicant was involved in the commission of offence and Ritesh Singh was present at the place of incident, nothing prevented him to disclose the names of the accused-applicant as one of the perpetrators of the crime. He also submits that the deceased was murdered by unknown persons, but because of the enmity due to election with the deceased and his family members, in a planned manner the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated. He further submits that it does not appeal to reason that father of the deceased would not accompany him to the Trauma Center, but he remained present near the place of occurrence, and he lodged the FIR after the death of the deceased, whereas the police station is situated within two kilometers from the place of incident. The independent witness, Ram Chandra Goswami, flower shop owner, where the incident took place, in his statement had said that he did not know the persons, who had committed the offence.
8. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant further submits that the police came within 10-15 minutes after the incident when it received the information on dial 100. This information to the police on dial 100 was given by one Ram Das Sur Baba, a local resident, who knew the entire family of the victim quite well. The police personnel, who reached after receiving information on dial 100, inquired regarding the incident. In the report prepared by the police of dial 100, one Sanju S/o Kallu came forward and said that he was all along with the deceased, Rinku Singh when the incident took place. One Person armed with fire arm came behind and fired a shot at back of Rinku Singh and, thereafter, he shot on the middle of the forehead and chest of the Rinku Singh, as a result of which he fell down on the ground.
9. Along with the supplementary affidavit, report prepared by the police after receiving the information on dial 100, has been placed on record. It is submitted that this report was procured through the Right to Information Act.
10. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant further submits that the whole prosecution story gets collapsed on the basis of the report of the police, which was prepared after receiving the information on dial 100, on which the police reached at the place of occurrence within 10-15 minutes.
11. Next submission of learned counsel for the accused-applicant is that there was enmity between the Dharmendra Kumar Mishra @ Pappu Mishra and the complainant because of the Village Panchayat election and, on 21.9.2016 an FIR was lodged at Case Crime No.423 of 2016 at Police Station Bachhrawan against the deceased, Rinku Singh and Ritesh Singh for murderous attack on Dharmendra Kumar Mishra @ Pappu Mishra, co-accused. He further submits that due to enmity, the accused-applicant and others have been falsely implicated. It is also submitted that the deceased was a criminal having several cases registered against him and had enmity with several persons. Some enemy got him killed by a hired criminal, who was not recognized by the alleged eye witnesses. He, therefore, submits that the accused-applicant, who has been in jail since 25.11.2018, may be enlarged on bail. It is also submitted that the trial has not proceeded and till date no prosecution witness has been examined.
12. On the other hand, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri Anil Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and have submitted that the accused-applicants are the land mafia and they were trying to capture the government lands and sell it or raise construction illegally over it. Wife of the deceased was Village Pradhan and the family of the complainant was opposing the said efforts of the accused, Dharmendra Kumar Mishra @ Pappu Mishra and others. Several complaints were given to the District Magistrate, Raebareli and the Land Management Commissioner and the Chief Minister etc. against the illegal and nefarious activities of the accused-applicants. Tehsildar, Maharajganj gave a report to the District Magistrate alleging that the accused had unauthorizedly taken possession of the government land and an order was passed for their eviction from the government land. The accused-applicants were aggrieved and enraged by the complaints made by the deceased and his wife against them and, therefore, to take revenge, they planned and killed the deceased. It has also been submitted that the accused-applicant has long criminal history and is a history sheeter. His history sheet number is 109A.
13. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have also submitted that the Forensic Science Laboratory report would suggest that all the fire arms injuries were caused to the deceased by different weapons and, therefore, submission of the learned counsel for the accused-applicant that it was one person, who killed the deceased by making fire arm injuries, is belied from the evidence collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that the so called police report prepared by the police on dial 100, is neither part of the case diary nor the police took into consideration the same while filing the charge sheet against the accused persons. Therefore. No reliance can be placed on such a report at this stage while deciding the bail application. It is also submitted that mere fact that the accused were not named in the inquest as persons who had committed the crime, would not make the prosecution case weak. Therefore, submission of the learned counsel for the accused-applicant that since the name of the accused-applicants were not mentioned at the time of preparing the inquest report, is of no consequence.
14. It is also submitted that the accused-applicants are not allowing the trial to proceed and they can not take advantage of their own wrong. It is further submits that Dharmendra Kuamr Mishra @ Pappu Mishra was granted bail on medical ground as he was suffering from Livo-serosis and after coming out from jail, he had died. Therefore, no parity can be claimed from co-accused, Dharmendra Kumar Mishra @ Pappu Mishra inasmuch as no such ground is available to the accused in the present case.
15. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the bail application.
16. The incident took pace in the broad day light in a busy place. The manner in which the incident took place, is not in dispute inasmuch as the deceased received several fire arm injuries from different fire arms, which is evident from the Forensic Science Laboratory report placed on record. The accused-applicant has criminal history, which is given along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State as under :-
"1. Case Crime No.728 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504 IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 27 Arms Act;
2. Case Crime No.743 of 2018, under Section 3/25/27 Arms Act;
3 Case Crime No.109 of 2019, under Sections 504, 506 IPC;
4. Case Crime No.141 of 2019, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act;
5. Case Crime No.162 of 2008, under Sections 304, 328, 276, 273 IPC and Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act;
6. Case Crime No.162D of 2008, under Section 328 IPC;
7. 1. Case Crime No.298 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC;
8. Case Crime No.134 of 2018, under Section 10 U.P. Control of Goondas Act;
9. Case Crime No.198 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC;
10. Case Crime No.149 of 2017, under Section ¾ U.P. Control of Goondas Act;
11. Case Crime No.364 of 2009, under Sections 110GR/C."
17. Mere fact that one of the eye witness, Ritesh Singh who was the inquest witness, did not name the accused during the inquest proceedings, would not entitle the accused-applicant to be enlarged on bail, if there is evidence available against him on record. Even the deceased was having criminal antecedents, that would not give license to the accused-applicant and other accused to kill the deceased. The accused-applicant himself is a criminal and he is a history sheeter.
18. Looking at the heinousness of offence, evidence available on record and the alleged involvement of the accused-applicant in commission of the offence, this Court does not find any ground to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail at this stage.
19. Bail application of Azeem is accordingly rejected.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8450 of 2020
20. In addition to the submissions made by Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the accused-applicant (Azeem), Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the accused-applicant (Manoj Trivedi) submits that the accused-applicant has no concern with the other accused persons. The deceased appears to have been killed on account of his personal enmity with other persons, and the deceased was a hardened criminal and he had enmity with several other persons. Wife of the deceased was Village Pradhan of Village Sidhauli. The deceased was land grabber and he was taking illegal possession of land of several persons. He further submits that according to the prosecution, accused Hafeez Ahmad @ Pappu Bhaijaan had made a confessional statement that he had arranged/hired two assailants to eliminate the deceased, who were not named in the FIR, but those assailants are Kallu Darji @ Saeed and Shaanu @ Mohd. Irshaad. He also submits that the deceased Rinku Singh had criminal history of following cases:-
"1. Case Crime No.346 of 2001, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebareli;
2. Case Crime No.176 of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 IPC, Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebareli; 3 Case Crime No.117 of 2007, under Sections 307, 323, 427 IPC and Section 5 Explosive Substances Act, Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebareli;
4. Case Crime No.705 of 2004, under Sections 147, 302, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebareli;
5. Case Crime No.298 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebareli;
6. Case Crime No.427 of 2018, under Section ¾ U.P. Control of Goondas Act, Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebareli."
21. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant further submits that the incident took place in the broad day light near a Temple, but no person present there has been cited as a prosecution witness. There are devotees, who had gathered for Darshan in the morning on 20.11.2018 at Bhaureshwar Temple. It is further submitted that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the commission of the offence inasmuch as there is no evidence to connect him with the offence and, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.
22. On the other hand, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri Anil Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and they have reiterated the submissions made in the bail application of accused-applicant, Azeem. They further submit that the accused-applicant has criminal history of following cases:-
"1. Case Crime No.728 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504 IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 27 Arms Act;
2. Case Crime No.748 of 2018, under Section 3/25 Arms Act;
3 Case Crime No.109 of 2019, under Sections 504, 506 IPC;
4. Case Crime No.141 of 2019, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act"
23. It is also submitted that the accused-applicant was also involved in the commission of offence. Therefore, he should not be enlarged on bail.
24. Having given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and further looking at the heinousness of offence, evidence available on record and the impact on society, this Court does not find any ground to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail at this stage.
25. Bail application of Manoj Trivedi is accordingly rejected.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.7424 of 2019 4795 of 2019
26. Sri Mohd. Amir Khan and Sri Gopesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the accused-applicants (Kallu Darji @ Saeed and Shaanu @ Mohd. Irshaad) submit that the accused-applicants have no concern with the other accused persons and they were not named in the FIR. It is submitted that the deceased was killed by some one, who was having enmity with the deceased as he was having a long criminal history. They also submit that even in the statements of the complainant and Ritesh Singh, brother of the deceased, who was allegedly an eye witness, accused-applicants ware not named. It is also submitted that name of the accused-applicants have come to light in the statements of Mrityunjay Singh and Rananjay Singh, nephews of the complainant, whereas the independent witness, Ram Chandra Goswami, flower shop owner, where the incident took place, in his statement had said that he did not know the persons, who had committed the offence. Therefore, statements of Mrityunjay Singh and Rananjay Singh, nephews of the complainant, can not be relied upon as they are chance witnesses. It is also submitted that the accused-applicants were said to be armed with 12 Bore country-made pistol, however, there is no fire arm injury caused to the deceased by12 Bore country-made pistol. It is further submitted that due to suspicion on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused, Hafeez Ahmad @ Pappu Bhaijaan, who said that he had arranged/hired two assailants to eliminate the deceased, the accused-applicants have been roped in the commission of offence. They further submits that accused-applicants have been falsely implicated due to enmity, therefore, they may be enlarged on bail.
27. On the other hand, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri Anil Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and they have reiterated the submissions made in the bail application of accused-applicant, Azeem. They further submit that the accused-applicants have criminal history of following cases:-
Criminal History of Accused-Shaanu @ Mohd. Irshaad "1. Case Crime No.1515 of 2010, under Sections 379, 411 IPC;
2. Case Crime No.1793 of 2010, under Section ¾ U.P. Control of Goondas Act;
3 Case Crime No.823 of 2014, under Sections 147, 304 IPC and Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act;
4. Case Crime No.35 of 2016, under Section under Section ¾ U.P. Control of Goondas Act;
5. Case Crime No.413 of 2016, under Section 10 U.P. Control of Goondas Act;
6. Case Crime No.728 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504 IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 27 Arms Act;
7. Case Crime No.751 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC;
8. Case Crime No.761 of 2018, under Section 3/25 Arms Act;
9. Case Crime No.109 of 2019, under Sections 504, 506 IPC;
10. Case Crime No.141 of 2019, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act."
Criminal History of Accused-Kallu Darji @ Saeed "1. Case Crime No.728 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504 IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act;
2 Case Crime No.751 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC;
3. Case Crime No.752 of 2018, under Section 3/25 Arms Act;
4 Case Crime No.102 of 1993, under Sections 457, 380, 411 IPC;
5. Case Crime No.137 of 1999, under Sections 458, 411 IPC;
6. Case Crime No.421 of 2012, under Sections 457, 380 IPC;
7. Case Crime No.158 of 1999, under Sections 380, 411 IPC;
8. Case Crime No.160 of 1999, under Section 8/21/22 NDPS Act;
9. Case Crime No.576 of 2012, under Section 307 IPC;
10. Case Crime No.577 of 2012, under Section 3/25 Arms Act;
11. Case Crime No.207 of 1991, under Section 41/109 Cr.P.C.;
12. Case Crime No.111 of 1997, under Section 4/10 G.T.P. Act;
13. Case Crime No.430 of 2017, under Sections 323, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act;
14. Case Crime No.102 of 2007, under Section 3 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act;
15. Case Crime No.51 of 2007, under Section 110G Cr.P.C.;
16. Case Crime No.217 of 2000, under Section 3 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act;
17. Case Crime No.90 of 1996, under Section 25 Arms Act;
18. Case Crime No.109 of 2019, under Sections 504, 506 IPC"
28. It is also submitted that the accused-applicants were also involved in the commission of offence. Therefore, they should not be enlarged on bail.
29. Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and further looking at the heinousness of offence, evidence available on record and the impact on society, this Court does not find any ground to enlarge the accused-applicants on bail at this stage.
30. Bail applications of Kallu Darji @ Saeed and Shaanu @ Mohd. Irshaad are accordingly rejected.
31. However, considering the fact that the accused-applicants have been in jail since 2018, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously without accommodating the request for adjournment on either behalf unless so warranted under compelling circumstances and complete the same within a period of one and a half year.
32. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned trial court forthwith for compliance.
( Dinesh Kumar Singh J.) Order Date :- 19.5.2022 Rao/-