Allahabad High Court
Sonu Alias Sikandar vs State Of U.P. on 31 May, 2024
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:100621 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11071 of 2024 Applicant :- Sonu Alias Sikandar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Kumar Shukla,Irfan Ahmad Malik Counsel for Opposite Party :- Digvijay Singh,G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Nishad Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kandarp Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Nishad, learned counsel for the informant as well as Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sonu Alias Sikandar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.217 of 2023, under Sections 366, 376A, 302 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station? Bindki, District? Fatehpur, during pendency of trial.
3. As per the allegations is the FIR lodged on 23.06.2023 at 08:43 hours under Section 366 I.P.C. against unknown persons, informant had gone on 22.06.2023 at about 11:00pm alongwith his family members to Aska Marriage Hall, Faridpur, Police Station- Bindki, District- Fatehpur. From there his 19 years old daughter Kiran Devi went away without telling the informant. When she could not be found, the informant suspected that somebody has enticed her away, therefore, the aforesaid first information report was lodged.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant has not been named in the FIR. The statement of informant was recorded wherein reiterating the version of the FIR, it has been stated that Kiran resided at Gujarat and had come to attend the marriage ceremony. It has also been stated that she used to talk on mobile phone with one boy named Sonu alias Sikandar (applicant). The informant had repeatedly asked her daughter not to talk with the aforesaid person. The mobile number of Sonu has been mentioned as 6388925891. Two mobile numbers of informant's daughter being mobile number 6351146282 and 7275585578 have been mentioned in the statement, therefore, on the basis of suspicion; the applicant has been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant had got the information about his daughter being found 500 meters away from Fatehpur in serious condition. When the informant reached there alongwith the police personnel and saw that his daughter has sustained number of injuries and was in serious condition, therefore, the police personnel took her to District Hospital, Fatehpur.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that CDR of mobile number 6388925891 has been collected wherein on 22.06.2023 at about 22:25 hours the person had called upon the mobile number of the victim i.e. 6351146282 which was the last call on her mobile phone. The location of the aforesaid mobile was found at Gram- Shahbajpur which is near to the place of incident. Thus the only evidence against the applicant is the call which was made by the mobile number 6388925891 which belongs to the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as he belongs to a different caste. The first informant has not mentioned the physical appearance of the victim nor about the clothes which she was wearing in the FIR. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and except for the CDR wherein the last call has been made by the applicant, there is no last seen evidence and only on the basis of CDR, the applicant has been nominated in the present case. The victim was initially examined at Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital at Kanpur on 23.06.2023 where the doctor found four incised wounds on her body. The aforesaid was conducted at 11:30am on 23.06.2023. In the post mortem, the doctor has mentioned about seven injuries; therefore, both the reports are different. UISE Maternity Hospital has not found a case of sexual violence as per the medical report submitted by them. The other co-accused Islam Ahmad and Aladeen Ahmad alias Chhotu have already been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in (i) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.42823 of 2023 vide order dated 05.12.2023 (Islam Ahmad vs. State of U.P.) and (ii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.45905 of 2023 vide order dated 31.10.2023 (Aladeen Ahmad Alias Chhotu vs. State of U.P.). The applicant has no criminal history as the same has been stated in paragraph no.29 of the bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.06.2023. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
6. Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State as well as Mr. Rajesh Kumar Nishad, learned counsel for the informant on the other hand submit that as per the prosecution case, in the statement of witnesses, it has been mentioned that the applicant with the help and assistance of the co-accused wanted to forcefully marry the victim. On the date of incident, the victim had gone alongwith her family members to attend a marriage but was missing after 11:00pm from the marriage ceremony. In the statement of the informant, it is clear that the informant knew about the friendly relation of the applicant with his daughter and on several occasions he had requested her not to talk with the applicant. A complaint in this regard was also made to the father of the applicant but he also supported the applicant and asked the informant to marry his daughter with the applicant. Learned AGA has pointed out the statement of Dr. Rashmi Yadav, Assistant Professor, G.S.V.M. Hospital, Kanpur Nagar who has stated that on 24.06.2023, the victim was internally examined by her. The internal examination shows that in the private parts of the victim rashes were found and mix blood discharge was also found. From the aforesaid, it is clear that some untoward incident has happened with the victim.
7. The CDR as collected goes to show that the applicant had made seven calls on 22.06.2023 starting from 21:37 hours to 22:25 hours. In the mobile phone of the victim (deceased) last SMS has been received on 22.06.2023 at about 14:25 hours. The aforesaid goes to show that the applicant is involved in the incident as the victim disappeared from the marriage on 22.06.2023 and could not be found whereas the mobile of the victim was found with the applicant. In the statement of informant, it has been clearly mentioned that the victim had two mobile numbers and one of the mobile phone has been recovered from the house of the applicant and blood stained brick has also been recovered near the place of incident. Location of the mobile was also found at the place of incident nearly at the time of the said incident. The external injuries as mentioned in the post mortem are seven in number. In the post mortem, it is mentioned that in the vagina, blood mixed with discharge was present and the uterus was empty. The injury is caused by hard and blunt object. From the statements the close proximity of the applicant is proved with the girl. The medical also shows injury on the private part of the deceased which speak volumes about the intention of the applicant and as from the call details, the connectivity of the applicant with the deceased is found on the date of death, therefore, the involvement of the applicant is not doubtful. They further submit that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
8. In view of the above discussions and seeing the heinousness of offence of murder, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case that no new ground has been taken by the applicant, therefore, no interference is required by this Court.
9. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 31.5.2024 Kalp Nath Singh