Allahabad High Court
Sachin Srivastava @ Chandan vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 11 July, 2019
Author: Pritinker Diwaker
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1310 of 2018 Appellant :- Sachin Srivastava @ Chandan Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Kumar,Arun Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Parijat Belaura Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned AGA for the State and Sri Parijaat Balaura, learned counsel for the complainant.
The appeal is formally admitted for hearing.
With the consent of parties, appeal is heard finally.
This appeal arises out of impugned order dated 2.7.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Court No.8, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 1253/2018 rejecting the application as filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149/34, 302 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Munshiganj, District Amethi.
Brief facts of the case are that on 16.1.2018, at 11:47 am, FIR was lodged by Shyam Bodh Kori, father of the deceased, Sunil Kumar @ Sonu, alleging in it that deceased was a Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Tanwa and was also a President of Pradhan Sangh, Block Shahgarh. On 15.1.2018, at about 7:30 pm, when he was returning from Munshi Ganj, he was killed by the accused by causing him several injuries by sharp edged weapon and firearm. He has stated that earlier also, deceased was threatened by the accused for which a complainant was made to the police.
Subsequently, on 5.2.2018, 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Ram Bodh was recorded wherein he has alleged that he and Arjun Prasad had seen the incident in which deceased was killed. He has stated that on account of fear of the accused, he did not approach the police earlier but later as his conscious did not permit him to keep quiet, he is informing the incident to the police. Almost similar statement was made by another eye-witness to the incident Arjun Prasad on 28.2.2018.
Counsel for the appellant submits:
(i) that the lodger of the FIR is not an eye-witness to the incident.
(ii) that there is delay in lodging the FIR though the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is just two kms.
(iii) that the FIR has been lodged after the inquest.
(iv) that there is delay in recording 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Ram Bodh and Arjun Prasad. Statement of Ram Bodh has been recorded on 5.2.2018, whereas statement of Arjun Prasad has been recorded on 28.2.2018.
(v) that Ram Bodh and Arjun Prasad both were accused along with deceased in a criminal case.
(vi) that the accused has been falsely implicated because of old enmity between the two groups.
(vii) that as under the State Government Scheme, lodger of FIR under the provisions of SC/ST Act gets some amount, this report has been lodged.
On the other hand, opposing these submissions, it has been argued by the State Counsel and the counsel for the complainant:
(i) even assuming that there is some delay in making 161 Cr.P.C. statement by Ram Bodh and Arjun Prasad but both of them have clarified as to why they could not approach the police earlier. Learned counsel submit that on account of fear, these two eye-witnesses, kept quiet for some time and when their conscious did not permit them to keep quiet, they approached the police and lodged the report. Effect of delayed 161 Cr.P.C. statement of these two witnesses can only be considered after their examination during trial.
(ii) that on pointing out of accused Sachin, one country-made pistol has been seized and likewise from accused Ravi Gautam, a blood stained axe has been seized and blood stained shoes of accused Sachin were also seized.
(iii) that there is strong motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased as in the election of village Pradhan, deceased Sunil Kumar @ Sonu, has defeated accused Vijay Kumar Srivastava, who for a long period was the village Pradhan.
I have heard the parties at length and perused the documents.
Considering the totality of the case, in particular, serious nature of offence, the fact that there are two eye-witnesses to the incident and certain incriminating articles were seized from the possession of the accused, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the appellant on bail. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. The appellant would be at liberty to revive his application after recording the court statement of Ram Bodh and Arjun Prasad. The trial court is, however, directed to make endeavour for early disposal of the trial.
Order Date :- 11.7.2019 RK