Allahabad High Court
Sadashiv Yadav @ Choota Bacha vs State Of U.P. on 3 November, 2020
Author: Ali Zamin
Bench: Ali Zamin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12322 of 2019 Applicant :- Sadashiv Yadav @ Chhota Bacha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Amit Kumar Srivastava,Dileep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Singh,Neeraj Kumar Pandey,R. P. Singh Parihar,Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Rohit Shukla,S.M.Faraz I. Kazmi,Sanjeev Kumar connected with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25863 of 2019 Applicant :- Pappu Maurya Alias Shailendra Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mehrotra,Ashish Kumar Srivastava,Srijan Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aftab Ahamad,Anil Kumar Singh,Neeraj Kumar Pandey,Rajiv Lochan Shukla connected with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13755 of 2019 Applicant :- Harish Chandra Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Yadav,Deena Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aftab Ahamad connected with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1862 of 2019 Applicant :- Hasim Baba Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ghan Shyam Das,Deena Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Singh,Gaurav Singh,S.M.Faraz I. Kazmi connected with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35846 of 2019 Applicant :- Ram Naresh Yadav Alias Neta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manik Chandra Yadav,Swatantra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aftab Ahamad,Rohit Shukla Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant Hasim Baba, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the material on record.
The present bail applications have been filed by the applicants with a prayer to enlarge them on bail in Session Trial No.571 of 2018 (Sadashiv Yadav @ Chhota Bacha vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.277 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Nawabganj, District Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant Sadashiv Yadav @ Chhota Bacha submits that according to F.I.R. on 25.06.2018 at about 10:00 a.m., deceased Lal Bachan, advocate was going Soraon, Allahabad from his house Kaurihar and the informant, his son was also going behind him by another motorcycle, when he reached the hamlet of Nem Tiwari before railway bridge, ahead of Nawabganj Handia Highway, four miscreants came on two motorcycles and at about 10:15 shot dead the deceased and ran away, informant rushed towards Allahabad taking his father in a four wheeler, when he reached Phaphamau, police took his father in 100 dial vehicle and brought in S.R.N. hospital where doctor declared him dead. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that on 26 and 27 February, 2018, applicant had threatened to kill him by saying to leave the pairvi of the case of Rajeshwari @ Rajkali vs. Shiv Pratap Singh, otherwise he will commit his murder and relating to the case District Magistrate, Allahabad vide order dated 07.05.2018 had directed Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Soraon, Settlement Officer Consolidation, Allahabad and Incharge Officer, (Revenue records) Allahabad to take action as per law against the persons, who forged and fabricated the documents. It is submitted that as per post-mortem report a fire arm wound of entry and second injury of contusion left side abdomen have been found. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., informant has stated that he has got to know the name of miscreants as applicant, Harish Chandra Gupta, Darish @ Danish and Ramesh Pasi. On 29.06.2018, applicant and other accused were arrested. Accused Darish @ Danish stated that shot was fired by Rajnikant Pasi. In additional statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant has stated that after recovering from the tragic incident when he started his profession then his associate Abrar Ahmad, advocate told him that after some days of the incident, Sadashiv Yadav @ Chhota Bacha came to him and told that regarding his purchased land a dispute is going on with Rajkali Sahai and deceased Lal Bachan was doing pairvi, in spite of explaining many times, he was not acceding, therefore, he planned murder of Lal Bachan along with Harish Chandra Gupta, Darish @ Danish, Ramesh Pasi, Ram Naresh Yadav and Ravi Kanaujiya and for assistance Ramesh Pasi and Ravi Kanaujiya took Rs.2,00000/-, in murder of Lal Bachan his wife Kanchan Yadav, Radha Devi wife of Ramesh Pasi and Pappu Maurya assisted in hatching conspiracy and Rajnikant Pasi was also along with them, who has sure shot and he fired shot to Lal Bachan. Witness Abrar Ahmad has stated that on 28.06.2018, accused Sadashiv Yadav came to his help and stated that he committed murder of the deceased with assistance of Harish Chandra Gupta, Darish @ Danish, Ramesh Pasi, Ram Naresh Yadav, Ravi Kanaujiya, Rajnikant Pasi and Hasim Baba. He further submits that at page 91 onward CCTV footage of Dr. Bhimrao University, Agraetc. on 25.06.2018 on Monday at 4:33 :50, his location was at Agra for appearing of his wife in an examination. He submits that as per F.I.R. informant was eye witness of the incident but he has not named the applicant as assailant in the F.I.R. and as per investigation role of conspiracy has been assigned to him. He further submits that extra judicial confession has been recorded after two months of the incident, which does not inspire confidence. It is also submitted that applicant is serious pancreatitis patient, document regarding his treatment have been annexed as Annexure-18 at pages 106-190 of the bail application. He further submitted that neither the applicant is a party in any case nor in any enquiry he has been found guilty for preparing forged and fabricated document. He has purchased a land from Savitri Devi daughter of Rajeshwari @ Rajkali and a case between Savitri Devi and Shiv Pratap Singh, Krishna Pratap Singh is pending before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Soraon, Allahabad that is why he has been falsely implicated in the case. The co-accused Ravi Kanaujiya, Darish @ Danish, Smt. Kanchan and Radha have been assigned role of conspiracy, have been enlarged on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.06.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant Pappu Maurya Alias Shailendra Maurya submits that as per additional statement of the informant his associate Abrar Ahmad, advocate told him that accused Sadashiv Yadav @ Chhota Bacha hatched conspiracy with Harish Chandra Gupta, Darish @ Danish, Ramesh Pasi, Ram Naresh Yadav and Ravi Kanaujiya. Ramesh Pasi and Ramesh Canaujiya took Rs.2,00000/- (rupees two lakhs) and his wife Kanchan Yadav, Radha Devi wife of Ramesh Pasi and Pappu Maurya assisted them. Ravi Kanaujiya has stated that Rs.2,00000/- were taken. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 28 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is further submitted that father of the applicant moved an application before C.J.M., Allahabad on 19.09.2019 that process has been issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against Pappu Maurya son of Shiv Sharan Maurya, resident of Sewaith, P.S. Soraon, District Allahabad and he has only one son Shailendra Kumar Maurya and his popular name is Pappu Maurya. A certificate of Pradhan has been annexed at paper nos.66-67 that no one is Ramraj Maurya @ Pappu Maurya, resident of village Panchayat Sewaith and Shailendra Kumar Maurya @ Pappu Maurya son of Shiv Sharan Maurya is resident of Sewaith (Bhubhui), mohalla and Tehsil Sadar. As per order dated 22.11.2018 learned C.J.M. had stayed the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The Pradhan and B.D.C. member moved an application before C.J.M. that Investigating Officer has not recorded their statement. He further submits that co-accused Smt. Kanchan Yadav, Smt. Radha Devi, Ravi Kanaujiya have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 16.01.2019, 17.01.2019 and 10.07.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.47008 of 2018, 43768 of 2018 and 9677 of 2019 respectively, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.05.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant Harish Chandra Gupta submits that applicant is not named in the F.I.R., criminal history of five cases of the applicant has been explained in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit in which he has been enlarged on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.06.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant Hasim Baba submits that informant has not disclosed the name of the applicant. The name of applicant came into light in the statement of witness Abrar Ahmad. The criminal history of of the applicant has been explained in para 11 of the supplementary affidavit in which he has been enlarged on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.08.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant Ram Naresh Yadav Alias Neta submits that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Nothing has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. The name of applicant came into light in the confessional statement of co-accused Darish @ Danish, who has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.07.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13956 of 2019. There is no criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 19.09.2018.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail prayer of the applicants and submit that Sadashiv Yadav @ Chhota Bacha is named in the F.I.R. and he was trying to grab the land related to case of Rajeshwari @ Rajkali vs. Shiv Pratap and deceased was prosecuting the aforesaid case. Sadashiv Yadav @ Chhota Bacha hatching conspiracy committed murder of the deceased, who was prosecuting the case of Rajkali vs. Shiv Pratap Singh. As per page no.15 of the supplementary counter affidavit in order dated 01.10.1999 passed in Case No.318, it has been observed that First Appeal No.1871 and other appeal against order dated 01.10.1999 passed in Case No.316 have been preferred, both appeals have been filed by Rajeshwari @ Rajkali widow of Babai Singh. Order sheet is scribed on the dates 15.09.2000, 21.11.2000, 22.12.2000, 24.01.2001, 16.03.2001, 20.04.2001 and 30.04.2001 but on the all dates signature of Presiding Officer are not tallying. According to order dated 30.04.2001 by allowing the appeal order dated 01.10.1999 passed in Case Nos.316 and 318 was rejected and it was directed that name of appellant Rajeshwari @ Rajkali widow of Babai Singh be recorded as co-sharer in Gata Nos.626, 627, 567, 577 and 581. As per paper no.43 of the supplementary counter affidavit, Settlement Officer, Consolidation stayed the operation of the order dated 30.04.2001 in Appeal Nos.1871 and 1872. The stay order was passed on 21.06.2018 and the next day i.e. 22.06.2018, applicant Sadashiv Yadav moved an application online for obtaining duplicate e-migration and on the day of incident in a planned way he went Agra. Abrar Ahmad advocate was member of Bar Governing Association and holding the position of influence that is why confession before him was made by the accused, about the incident. Applicant had also threatened to the deceased which is disclosed in the F.I.R. Further submits that in para 7 of the counter affidavit it has been mentioned that five writs were filed by Savitri Devi before this Hon'ble Court in which affidavits were filed by the applicant Sadashiv Yadav @ Chhota Bacha and no efficacious remedy was given to her.
Further submits that accused-applicant Pappu Maurya was an absconder and award of Rs.25,000/- has been declared against him.
Further submits that in the confessional statement of co-accused Rajnikant Pasi, it has been disclosed that vehicle of Harish Chandra Gupta was involved in the alleged incident i.e. UP 70 CD 6693. It is also submitted that there was no enmity of the deceased with the accused, deceased was only prosecuting the case of Rajkali vs. Shiv Pratap Singh.
Lastly, he submits that to grab the property applicants in a planned manner committed murder of the deceased, therefore, they are not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, applicant Sadashiv Yadav @ Chhota Bacha is named in the F.I.R. and as per F.I.R. before the incident he threatened the deceased to leave the pairvi of the case of Rajkali vs. Shiv Pratap Singh, vide order dated 30.04.2001, Settlement Officer Consolidation directed to record the name of Rajkali as co-sharer with regard to Gata Nos.626, 627, 567, 577 and 581 and the said order was stayed on 21.06.2018, affidavits filed by the applicant Sadashiv Yadav @ Chhota Bacha in writs filed by Savitri Devi, applicant Sadashiv Yadav @ Chhota Bacha purchased the land Gata Nos.626 and 627 from Savitri Devi daughter of Rajkali on 25.01.2018 and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, I do not find a fit case for bail of applicant Sadashiv Yadav @ Chhota Bacha.
Consequently, the prayer for bail of the applicant Sadashiv Yadav @ Chhota Bacha is hereby refused and the bail application is rejected.
However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as per statement under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. of the informant name of applicants Harish Chandra Gupta and Daris @ Danish surfaced and Ramesh Pasi in his additional statement as well as statement of Abrar Ahmad, advocate name of Harish Chandra Gupta, Darish @ Danish, Ramesh Pasi, Ram Naresh Yadav, Ravi Kannaujiya, Ravi Kannaujiya, Kanchan Yadav, Radha Devi and Pappu Maurya surfaced, enlargement of co-accused Smt. Kanchan Devi, Radha Devi, Ravi Kannaujiya, Darish @ Danish on bail and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicants are entitled for bail, let the applicants- Pappu Maurya @ Shailendra Maurya, Harish Chandra Gupta, Hasim Baba and Ram Naresh Yadav @ Neta involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicants shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fails 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 3.11.2020 Jitendra