Allahabad High Court
Ram Sagar vs State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home on 22 September, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:61473 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2176 of 2023 Applicant :- Ram Sagar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- O.P. Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
1. This is second application for bail moved by the accused-applicant, Ram Sagar. His first application for bail was rejected by the coordinate Bench vide order dated 28.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2421 of 2022. However, the Hon'ble Judge, who has rejected the first bail application of the applicant, has now been transferred to some other State.
2. Heard Shri O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. This second bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Ram Sagar for grant of bail, in F.I.R./Case Crime No.0385 of 2021, under Sections 147, 302, 506, 201 and 328 I.P.C., Police Station Bangermau, District Unnao, during trial.
4. It is vehemently stated that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant on 28.04.2022 all the accused persons of this crime, namely, Govind, Lal Chandra, Jai Pal and Ram Kumar have been granted bail by the coordinate Benches as well as this Court vide orders dated 19.01.2023, 31.01.2023, 15.05.2023 and 26.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 2418 of 2022, 2882 of 2022, 15.05.2023 and 5603 of 2023 respectively. Thus, there is material change in the circumstances since the rejection of first bail application of the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.
6. It is further submitted that on 19.10.2021 Ram Kumar, who is also the father of Sarla (who was also done to death in the incident) had lodged an F.I.R. against the another deceased Balkishan son of the informant of the instant case pertaining to enticing away his daughter Sarla, who was aged about 15 years at the relevant point of time which has been registered as Case Crime No. 384 of 2021 at Police Station Bangarmau, District Unnao and thereafter on 19.10.2021 two skeletons were found in the field of the informant Ram Singh, who were identified as deceased Balkishan and Kumari Sarla and without there being any basis or material the informant of this case has lodged the first information report against father of the victim Sarla namely Ram Kumar and his other relatives/accused persons and it is only on the basis of suspicion the F.I.R. has been lodged.
7. It is further submitted that the story to the tune that both the deceased persons were having love affair and it is due to this they have been done to death by the applicant and other co-accused persons could not be believed, as there is no direct evidence in support of this theory and the case of the prosecution is based on 'circumstantial evidence' and the only evidence which was available against the accused persons was the statement of one Manoj Dwivedi, before whom the accused persons are stated to have confessed their guilt. However, the statement of this witness could not be believed, as he has stated that extra-judicial confession was made by the accused persons including the applicant before him to the tune that the daughter of Ram Kumar namely Sarla and son of the informant of this case namely Ram Singh were in love with each other and they used to talk with each other and they used to cohabit at a remote place of the village and earlier they were seen in compromising position by the mother of deceased Sarla and they again absconded in the intervening night of 12-13.10.2021 and were again found in a compromising position near a pond outside the village and they have caused the death of deceased Balkishan by 'strangulation' and when Sarla was making 'hue and cry' they also caused her death by strangulation and had concealed their bodies in shrubs and after four days they dragged their bodies cut and put them in the field of Ram Singh and also poured some acidic substance on their bodies and also that their bodies were burnt due to pouring of acid like liquid. It is vehemently submitted that story as cooked up by this witness could not be believed as during the course of investigation, the clothes of the deceased were sent for forensic examination and neither any poison was found in the viscera of the deceased persons nor any acidic substance was found on the clothes of both the deceased persons and, therefore, the story, as cooked up by witness Manoj Dwivedi could not be believed and the last seen evidence of witness Radhey Shyam, as he kept mum and did not disclose this fact to anyone and apart from it, there is no evidence which may connect the applicant with the crime. Charge sheet in this case has already been filed and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.
8. It is further submitted that criminal history of one case is being alleged against the applicant, however, the same pertains to matrimonial discarded relations and the applicant has been enlarged on bail in that case by the competent trial Court. Applicant has been languishing in jail in this case since 31.10.2021.
9. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicant is accused of committing heinous offence and the manner in which the 'honour killing' of both the young persons have been done is itself sufficient to deny the facility of bail, as they may tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the story which emerges from the record is that daughter of informant of Case Crime No. 384 of 2021 (Sarla) was having affair with the son of the informant of the instant case namely deceased Balkishan. It has come in the F.I.R. that it was in the intervening night of 12-13.10.2021 the deceased Balkishan was talking on the telephone and had gone out of the house. The story, as has been investigated by the investigating officer is also to the tune that deceased Balkishan and Sarla were having affair and they were frequently cohabiting in a 'khandhar' (lonely place) situated at the outskirt of village. However, they were caught in compromising position by the mother of Sarla namely Ramkumari and she warned both persons. However, in the intervening night of 12-13.10.2021 both persons again eloped from their houses and when a search is launched, they were found in compromising position near a pond situated outside the village and on being caught the deceased Balkishan was assaulted by accused persons on which Sarla screamed that they themselves want to end their lives and she took out a 'pudiya'. However, this 'pudiya' was snatched by the accused persons and they placed it in the bowl carried by the deceased Balkishan and forced him to drink it and when he refused to drink it, they killed him by strangulation and when Sarla also made 'hue and cry' and threatened them that she will reveal the whole story to the village she was also done to death by the accused persons by strangulation. Thereafter it is shown that the accused persons have confessed their guilt before Manoj Dwivedi wherein they also stated that after committing the murder of these two persons they concealed the dead bodies in shrubs and after four days they dragged their bodies to the field of father of the deceased Balkishan namely Ram Singh and poured acid on the dead bodies whereby dead bodies were burnt. The statement of witness Manoj Dwivedi before whom extra-judicial confession is shown to have been made by the accused persons, has been recorded on 22.10.2021, when the missing report pertaining to deceased Balkishan had already been lodged on 17.10.2021. It is vehemently submitted that there was no occasion for this witness to keep mum for two days and there was no occasion for the accused persons to confess before him, as he was not at all in a position to help the accused persons. It is also submitted that confessional statement of the accused recorded while he was in the custody of police is also of no use by virtue of bar contained under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and no recovery of any kind has been effected on the pointing of applicant. It is also submitted that witness Radhey Shyam who claimed to have seen deceased persons and accused persons, going behind each other towards the place where the dead bodies were later on found in the night of 12/13.10.2021, could also not be believed as his statement has been recorded on 22.10.2021 and there was no reason for him to keep silence for 10 days. Thus, apart from suspicion there is no evidence against applicant and motive could also not be attributed to the instant applicant, which was only available to the father of Sarla namely Ram Singh.
11. It is also submitted that story as cooked up in confessional statements of accused persons is not corroborated by forensic evidence as no acid or poison has been found in remains and viscera of deceased persons. Applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 31.10.2021. Charge sheet in this case has also been filed and the presence of the applicant may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions. The case of the instant applicant is distinguished from co-accused Ram Kumar, who is the father of deceased Sarla.
12. It is also reflected that all the accused persons, namely, Govind, Lal Chandra, Jai Pal and father of Sarla, who was also having motive, namely, Ram Kumar, whose role was distinguished by this Court, while enlarging co-accused, Govind on bail, have been granted bail and nothing has been brought in the notice of this Court which may suggest that bail orders, whereby the co-accused persons have been granted facility of bail, have been challenged at any higher forum or have been cancelled by the same Courts. Thus, there is material change in circumstances since the rejection of the first bail application of the applicant. Thus, for the reasons mentioned herein above, this second bail application of the applicant is allowed.
13. Let the accused/applicant- Ram Sagar, involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
15. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
16. Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
.
[Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.] Order Date :- 22.9.2023 MVS/-