Allahabad High Court
Sarjeet Singh Alias Pappu And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home ... on 28 April, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3340 of 2022 Applicant :- Sarjeet Singh Alias Pappu And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Alka Singh,Amit Kumar Awasthi,Diwakar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 446 of 2021, under Sections 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station Paliya, District Lakhimpur Kheri.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 28.11.2021 at 12:07 hrs. against the applicants and one Sudhir, stating that the accused persons had taken away the informant's son at about 07:00 pm on 21.11.2021 to the house of the applicant no. 1; that after some time when the informant and some other persons went to the house of applicant no. 1, all three accused persons were arguing with the informant's son regarding some financial transaction and the applicant no. 1 stated that he will drop the informant's son at his home after some time. The FIR states that the informant's son had sowed crop in the field of Sudhir and he has invested Rs. 25,000/- in it regarding which there was a dispute. At about 05:00 a.m. on 22.11.2021, upon hearing the cries of the informant's daughter-in-law, they reached their other house situated nearby and found that the informant's son was hanging in a hut and his legs were resting on the earth.
4. The inquest proceedings were witnessed by the informant and his other relatives and they stated that it appeared that the deceased had committed suicide. However, in the postmortem examination report, a contusion on his head, a contusion on left side of face, below the left eye and a ligature mark 'all around the neck' below thyroid cartilage mark, was found and thyroid cartilage was found broken. The cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation.
5. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicants are innocent, they have falsely been implicated in the present case and that they have no criminal history.
6. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the statement of the deceased's wife recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and that of the charge sheet. The deceased's wife stated that the accused persons had taken away her husband in the night at 07:00 p.m. on 21.11.2021; that after some time, loud voices of abuse etc. started dominating from the house of the applicant no. 1 whereupon her family members went to his house and found that the applicants were abusing the informant's husband and threatened to kill him; the informant's family members thought that they were abusing in an inebriated condition, which they used to do frequently and, therefore, they did not pay much attention to it; that afterwords she had seen the applicants standing with her husband near his cot, beneath the hut and she thought that the applicants would have made her husband consume excess liquor and for that reason they had come to drop him home. In the morning she saw that her husband was standing with the support of a gamcha and his feet were on the earth.
7. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith statements of the informant Amar Nath and that of the deceased's wife and son recorded by the trial court. Two other supplementary affidavits have been filed annexing therewith the statements of two brothers of the deceased and that of the doctor. The informant and deceased's wife have fully supported the FIR version and they have stated that the deceased was ploughing the field of the applicant no. 1 and there was a financial dispute between the deceased and the applicant for the aforesaid reason.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant has laid much emphasis on the fact that the inquest proceedings have been witnessed by the informant and his other family members and the FIR has been lodged after six days of the incident. He has further submitted that there was no motive with the applicant for committing the offence.
9. At the time of the incident, the deceased was found hanging and it was from his postmortem report, that it transpired that the ligature mark around his neck was present all around the neck; that the deceased had two other injuries and he had been killed by strangulation. The FIR has been lodged afterwards and mere non mention of the allegation of murder in inquest report, would not be a decisive factor. So far as the submission with regard to motive is concerned, it has been stated in the FIR as well as in all the statements that the deceased had taken agricultural land of the co-accused Sudhir for cultivating. Persons have stated that there was a monetary dispute between the deceased and the accused persons.
10. The learned counsel of the applicant has next submitted that the doctor, who had conducted postmortem examination of the dead body, has not supported the prosecution case and he has stated that the wind pipe of the deceased was not found broken. In this regard it is sufficient to note that the postmortem examination report categorically mentions ligature mark all around the neck of the deceased and that the thyroid cartilage was found broken and the cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation.
11. The aforesaid facts have been stated by the doctor in his examination-in-chief. In his cross examination, the doctor has stated that in case of strangulation by some other persons, it is possible that the wind pipe may be broken but he has not stated that the deceased could not have been killed by strangulation and that the postmortem report given by him was incorrect.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and without making any observation which may affect the outcome of the trial, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts do not warrant exercise of discretion of this Court for enlarging the applicant on bail.
13. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 28.4.2023 Pradeep/-