Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra vs State Of U.P. on 19 November, 2022
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ? Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52048 of 2022 Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Dharmendra Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. Instant bail application has been filed by applicant-Ramesh Chandra seeking his enlargement on bail in of Case Crime No. 393 of 2022 under Sections 304/34 I.P.C., Police Station- Bhagaon District-Manpuri, during the pendency of trial.
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 25.08.2022, a prompt F.I.R. dated 25.08.2022 was lodged by first informant Kallu (father of the prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No. 393 of 2022, which was registered as Case Crime No. 668 of 2017 under under Sections 147, 148 and 304I.P.C., Police Station- Bhagaon District-Manpuri. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons namely -Ramesh Chandra, Anshu @ Ramoo, Shilendra @ Samoo, Anil Kumar and Dhruv Singh have been nominated as named accused.
5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused with a common intention assaulted Durgesh brother of first informant with Iron Rod, Lathi, Danda and Sharp Edged Weapon. On accoun of aforesaid, Durgesh sustained injuries. Thereafter, he was taken to concerned Hospital. The Doctor, who attended the injured prepared the Medico Legal Report (Injury-Form) of the injured dated 25.08.2022. As per aforesaid Medico Legal Report, the injured sustained following injuries.
i. L.W. 4 cm X 2 Cm on back of head- ADV. X-Ray.
ii. L.W. 3 cm X 2 cm on back of head adjacent to injury no.i-Adv. X-Ray.
iii. Contusion 4 cm X 3.5 cm on left upper arm- Adv. X-Ray.
iv. L.W. 5 cm on left side (lateral part) back of abdomen.
v. Multiple abrasion size 6 cm X 1 cm to 2 cm. on away back of chest and back of abdomen.
vi. Contusion 3.5 cm X 3 cm at the ankle joint.
6. However, while the injured was being taken to Hospital, his condition was found to be critical. Therefore, on the way, one of the police constable, who took the injured to the Doctor, recorded his statement, which is on record at page 44 of the paper book. In the aforesaid dying declaration, the injured has nominated named accused Ramoo and Samoo in causing injury to him, where named accused Ramesh was said to be present at the place of occurrence. Subsequently the injured Durgesh succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. Thereafter, inquest (Panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted. In the opinion of panch witnesses, nature of death of deceased was characterised as homicidal. Subsequent to above the post mortem of the body of deceased was conducted. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of deceased, found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased.
"i. Multiple L/w size 5 x 4 cm on left occipital region. ii. Contusion size 7 x 5 cm. on right eye with cheek. iii. Contusion size 12 x 10 cm. on left upper arm.
iv. Multiple Contusion size 60 x 37 cm on back of chest, abdomen and both gluteal region. v. Contusion size 9 x 3 cm on back of left thish.
vi. Contusion size 18 x 5 cm on lateral aspect of left leg including left ankle joint. vii. Contusion size 6 x 2 cm right ASIS.
viii. Multiple abrasion ever right hand middle finger and ring finger. ix. Abrasion size 4 x 2 cm on right elbow.
x. Multiple small L/W on right leg just above right ankle joint on medical aspect.
7. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon cause of death of deceased was Haemorrhagic shock as a result of ante-mortem head injuries.
8. After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of afore-mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined the first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which is substantially adverse to named accused. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigation Officer he opined to submit charge sheet. Accordingly, he submitted the charge sheet dated 26.10.2022 whereby three of the named accused namely Ramesh Chandra, Anshu @ Ramoo, Shilendra @ Samoo have been charge sheeted under sections 302/34 I.P.C.
9. Subsequently, Investigating Officer filed a supplementary charge sheet dated 03.11.2022 whereby another named accused Amit Kumar has been charge-sheeted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. However, complicity of one of the named accused namely Dhruv Singh was not established in the crime in question. Accordingly, he was exculpated by the Investigating Officer.
10. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though the applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused but he is innocent. Drawing a paralleled between the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the statement of Durgesh (deceased recorded by the Investigating Officer, he submits that the injured before his death has not implicated the present applicant in the crime in question. Allegations made in the F.I.R. and dying declaration of deceased are not consistent. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the aforesaid dying declaration. With reference to the Medico Legal Report and the post-mortem report of deceased, he submits that they are at variance which create a doubt with regard to day, date and time of occurrence. It is then contended that the motive for committing the crime in question is not explicit from the F.I.R.. It is lastly contended that applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 28.08.2022 As such, he has undergone more than one and a half months of incarceration. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. Since the charge-sheet has already been submitted against applicant therefore the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant, stands crystallised. As such, custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary during the course of trial. On the cumulative strength of above, learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant be enlarged on bail.
11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. He submits that since the applicant is a named and charge-sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. It is next contended by learned A.G.A. that present case is a case of direct evidence. As such, motive is wholly immaterial. According to the learned A.GA.. the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in the occurrence which occurred on 25.08.2022. He further submits that when the defence doubts the injuries sustained by deceased on any ground the burden is upon the accused to explain the circumstances in which the injured sustained injuries. No explanation regarding above has come forward. The eye witness of the occurrence in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. On the cumulative strength of above, he submits that applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court, Therefore, present application for bail is liable to be rejected.
12. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of evidence on record, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that applicant is named accused as well as charge-sheeted accused, injuries sustained by deceased has been disputed by applicant but no explanation has been offered by the applicant with regard to manner in which injured sustained injuries, the statement of the injured recorded by the police constable is ipso-facto not reliable at this stage in view of the judgement of Apex Court in Kushal Rao vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
14. Consequently, present application fails and is therefore liable to rejected.
15. Accordingly, present application for bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 19.11.2022 YK