Allahabad High Court
Raghunandan Singh vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 22 July, 2019
Author: Pritinker Diwaker
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1952 of 2018 Appellant :- Raghunandan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Akhilesh Pandey And Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1749 of 2018 Appellant :- Nagendra Pratap Singh & Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate And Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1751 of 2018 Appellant :- Brijendra Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate And Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1277 of 2019 Appellant :- Brijendra Pratap Singh & 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Sri Arun Sinha, Sri Balkeshwar Srivastava and Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Dhananjay Kumar Singh learned AGA for the State and Sri Akhilesh Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant.
The appeals are formally admitted for hearing.
With the consent of parties, appeals are heard finally.
All these appeals arise out of common incident dated 20.06.2018 wherein one Ramdev was killed by some unknown persons. Appellant Raghunandan Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1952 of 2018 assailing the order dated 08.10.2018 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application Nos. 1874 of 2018 and 2292 of 2018. Appellants Nagendra Pratap and Shailendra Pratap Singh have filed Criminal Appeal No. 1749 of 2018 assailing the order dated 11.09.2018 passed by the same Court in Bail Application No. 1888 of 2018. They have also challenged the order dated 08.07.2019 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 1708 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2019. Appellant Brijendra Pratap Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1751 of 2018 assailing the order dated 11.9.2018 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 1526 of 2018. He has also challenged the order dated 08.07.2019 passed in Bail Application No. 1708 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2019.
For brevity, it is made clear that against all the appellants, offence under Sections 147, 148, 302/34, 120B of I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act has been registered vide Crime No. 145 of 2018 at P.S. Musafirkhana, District Amethi and their bail applications have been dismissed on different dates as mentioned above. All these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.
As per prosecution case, on 21.06.2018 at 10.58 a.m., FIR was lodged by Sanjay Kumar, son of deceased Ramdev, alleging in it that on 20.06.2018 at about 08.00 p.m., his father had gone to the mango orchard but there he has been killed by someone. Based on this FIR, offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. was registered against unknown persons. During investigation, diary statement of various persons have been recorded and according to prosecution, these statements reflect that it is the appellants who, along with main accused Ajay Pandey, have committed the murder of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits:
(i) that there is no eye witness account to the incident and the appellants have been made accused only on the basis of doubt raised by some of the witnesses. It has been argued that just because there was some land dispute between the parties, it cannot be presumed that it is the appellants, who have committed the murder of the deceased.
(ii) that while referring to 161 Cr.P.C. statement of witness Sanjay Singh, which was recorded on 22.06.2018, it has been argued that he has merely stated that he is sure that it is the accused persons, who have committed the offence. Learned counsel submits that merely on the basis of doubt raised by Sanjay Singh, it cannot be said that these appellants have committed the murder of the deceased.
(iii) that while referring to the statement of Dhanwati Devi, wife of the deceased, recorded on 22.06.2018, it has been argued that she has merely stated that she saw the accused persons roaming near the mango orchard.
(iv) that Rudradev, brother of the deceased, is another witness of prosecution, whose diary statement was recorded on 10.07.2018, but he has merely stated that there was an old land dispute for which complaint was made and that he had also some suspicion about the involvement of the appellants. He has further stated that deceased used to receive threat but merely on this basis, it cannot be said that the appellants are involved in commission of offence.
(v) that statement of another witness Salik Ram was recorded on 06.07.2018 and he has merely stated that there was land dispute between the parties and an apprehension was shown by this witness that the deceased was residing all alone and, therefore, he was worried about him. Almost similar statement has been made by witness Deshraj, whose statement was also recorded on 06.07.2018.
(vi) that while referring to the statement of Nokhe Lal, recorded on 29.07.2018, it has been argued that though this witness has been examined as witness for hatching conspiracy, but his credentials are also doubtful as to why this witness kept quiet for about a month, this delay has not been explained by the prosecution. Similar argument has been raised in respect of witness Jai Bahadur Singh.
(vii) that inordinate delay in recording the statement of witnesses has not been properly explained by the prosecution.
(viii) that even if the entire evidence as collected against the appellants is taken into consideration, under no stretch of imagination, appellants can be held guilty for committing the murder of the deceased.
(ix) that the affidavits of Indresh Pandey and Ram Prasad Yadav given on 12.09.2018 are also doubtful, as there is inordinate delay in giving the same and there is no justification for such delay. Moreover, their diary statements have never been recorded.
(x) that appellants Raghunandan Singh, Nagendra Pratap Singh and Shailendra Pratap Singh are in jail since 16.08.2018, while Brijendra Pratap Singh is in jail since 08.07.2018 and even till date, charge has not been framed, trial may take sometime for its conclusion and, therefore, the appellants be released on bail.
(xi) that the provisions of the SC/ST Act do not attract against the appellants, as it is not the case of the prosecution that because the deceased belongs to a particular caste, he was subjected to offence by the appellants.
On the other hand, State counsel and learned counsel for the objector have seriously opposed the submissions as raised on behalf of appellants. They, however, does not dispute that there is no eye witness account to the incident and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. They are not in a position to dispute that none of the incriminating article has been seized from the possession of accused-appellants.
Considering the totality of the case, in particular the nature of evidence collected by the prosecution and further considering the detention period of the appellants, without further commenting on merit, I am inclined to release the appellants on bail.
Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.
Let the appellants Raghunandan Singh, Nagendra Pratap Singh, Shailendra Pratap Singh & Brijendra Pratap Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) each and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The appellants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under section 229-A I.P.C.
(iii) In case, the appellants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. may be issued and if appellants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(iv) The appellants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the appellants.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellants, shall have serious repercussion on their bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 22.7.2019 SK