Allahabad High Court
Rajeev Yadav @ Banti vs State Of U.P. on 5 January, 2010
Author: Shashi Kant Gupta
Bench: Shashi Kant Gupta
Court No. - 51 Reserved Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19085 of 2009 Petitioner :- Rajeev Yadav @ Banti Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- P.K. Srivastava,N.K. Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant , learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
The applicant has applied for bail in Case Crime No. 35 of 2008, under sections 302,376,511 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)((V) of SC/ST Act P.S. Ashothar, District Fatehpur.
It is a triple murder case.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that the post mortem reports of the deceased persons do not support the prosecution story. It is further submitted that , according to the F.I.R. the deceased Jhallu Shukla was assaulted by the deceased Smt. Asha by Hansiya( a sharpe edged weapon) but the said deceased Jhallu Shukla did not receive any injury of Hansiya and in fact, fire arm injury was found on the person of the deceased Jhallu Shukla which falsifies the prosecution story .
It is further submitted that it is unbelievable that the applicant , who is alleged to have reached the spot to protect and save his brother , would cause any fire arm injury to his brother . In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the site plan to falsify the story of the prosecution.
Learned counsel for the applicant also referred to the statement of Dinesh alias Pappu ( P.W. 2) to show that he was not an eye witness of the scene and in support of his contention also referred to the Panchayatnama wherein the Sari and other clothes were found intact on the person of the deceased Smt. Asha, as such the story of rape , as alleged by the witness Dinesh alias Pappu, can not be relied upon. It is further submitted that in the site plan the applicant has not been shown on the spot and pointed out other discrepancies.
It is further submitted that the informant is not eye witness of the incident and , in fact, no body had seen the alleged incident and F.I.R. was lodged on hearsay .
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application and submitted that in the present case a heinous crime has been committed by the applicant wherein three persons have been killed and the applicant is the sole accused named in the F.I.R and specific role of shooting has been assigned to him.
It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that the post mortem reports of all the deceased persons fully corroborate the prosecution story. In support of his contention, the learned A. G.A. referred to the injury report dated 29.2.08 of Ravi Shanker Shukla alias Jhallu which clearly shows that he was brought to the hospital at Fatehpur by Laxmi Shanker Shukla and not by the applicant.
It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that according to the injury report dated 29.2.2008, the injury no. 1 was caused by the fire arm and injury no. 2 was caused by Hansiya from its blunt side.
He further referred to the post mortem report of the deceased Ravi Shankar Shukla alias Jhallu and argued that indiscriminate firing was made upon the deceased Srimati and her daughter Smt. Asha and during the course of firing, Ravi Shankar Shukla alias Jhallu Shukla also sustained fire arm injuries and succumbed to injuries. It is further submitted that the nature of the fire arm injuries caused to Srimati and his daughter Smt. Asha as well as to the deceased Ravi Shankar Shukla alias Jhallu clearly shows that the fires were shot from the same weapon . In support of his allegation, he also referred to the statement of Dinesh alias Pappu recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he has clearly stated that the applicant made indiscriminate firing, killing Srimati and her daughter Smt. Asha and also shot fire at his brother Jhallu Shukla who sustained serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to his injuries.
It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that Dinesh alias Pappu, who happens to be the son of the deceased Srimati, is an eye witness of the scene . Learned A.G.A. also referred to the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses Bhola Pasi, Virendra Shukla and Dharmendra, who have supported the prosecution story . It is further submitted that the evidentiary value of the statements of the eye witness Dinesh alias Pappu and other witnesses recorded before the court below will be considered by the trial court and its evidentiary value can not be appreciated by this court .
Lastly, it was submitted by the learned A.G.A. that any minor discrepancy in the site plan prepared by the investigating officer will not give any benefit to the accused applicant. He further submitted that the trial is at an advanced stage. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this court to consider the bail application of the applicant.
It is settled law that in granting or non granting of bail in non bailable offences, the primary consideration is the nature and gravity of the offence. In the present case, the applicant is accused of committing triple murder. The alleged crime was committed in broad day light. The court must hear the loud cry for justice by the society in the heinous crime.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, no case for bail is made out. The prayer for bail is declined and the bail application is rejected.
However, the learned lower court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously , preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, keeping in view the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Order Date: 5.1.2010 MLK