Allahabad High Court
Shubham Rawat Alias Monu Rawat vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 28 November, 2024
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:79056 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2739 of 2024 Appellant :- Shubham Rawat Alias Monu Rawat Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vivek Kumar Rai,Ajai Kumar,Shakti Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Misra Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri R.D. Shahi, Advocate alongwith Sri Sushil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the informant-complainant and perused the record.
2. Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 24.07.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow, in Bail Application No.5489 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.93 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 506 IPC and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station-Kakori, District-Lucknow.
3. While pressing present appeal, it is stated that the case of prosecution indicated in the FIR is completely bogus and false. The story is concocted and on account of inimical relations, which occurred on account of election for the post of 'Gram Pradhan', the appellant and other co-accused have been implicated in the instant case. In fact it is a case of 'Harsh Firing'. To substantiate the same, following facts have been indicated:-
(i) Indisputedly, for the post of Pradhan of Village Tej Krishan Khera, Police Station-Kakori, District-Lucknow, accused-appellant Shubham @ Monu and Ram Pal Yadav-informant contested the election.
(ii) In the said election, co-accused Rinku, Akhilesh Kumar Rawat, Bablu @ Ritesh, Gyanendra, Sri Krishna and Ram Kesh supported the accused-appellant Shubham @ Monu.
(iii) In the said election, accused-apppellant Shubham @ Monu was defeated.
(iv) Indisputedly, Bock Pramukh Rambilas Rawat @ Ram Kishan was attending the 'Tilak Ceremony' on 12.04.2024. This 'Tilak ceremony' was taking place in front of the house of the informant namely Ram Pal Yadav.
(v) The food for the said 'Tilak ceremony' was also preparing in front of the house of the informant and the dinner was organized adjacent to the house of the informant and these facts are apparent from the Site Plan annexed at Page 72 of the paper book.
(vi) The incident, according to the FIR as also Site Plan, occurred in front of house of one Mohd. Salim (marked as point 'A' in the Site Plan).
(vii) The distance has not been indicated but it appears that place of incident is nearer to the place where 'Tilak ceremony' was taking place.
(viii) According to the FIR, accused-appellant(s), who are seven in numbers, opened fire at Block Pramukh Rambilas Rawat @ Ram Kishan, informant-Ram Pal Yadav as also Anant Ram, Amit Kumar @ Chhotu and Jai Karan Yadav.
(ix) FIR indicates that seven persons were armed with country made pistol/pistol/gun opened fire at five persons at a place i.e. a road in front of the house of Mohd. Salim.
(x) The story of the prosecution indicates that Anant Ram, Amit Kumar @ Chhotu, Jai Karan Yadav and Rambilas Rawat @ Ram Kishan sustained gun shot injuries.
(xi) After the incident, an FIR registered as Case Crime No. 0093 of 2024 was lodged on 13.04.2024 at 06:29 hours.
(xii) The inquest of the body of deceased Anant Ram was carried out on 13.04.2024 (started at 10:37 hours) at Lok Bandhu Hospital, Kanpur Road, Lucknow.
(xiii) Ranjit Yadav son of the deceased Anant Ram is one of the witnesses of the inquest. According to the opinion of witnesses of inquest, deceased Anant Ram sustained gunshot injury in a marriage ceremony. The relevant portion indicated reads as under:-
"??? ????? - ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??????????? ??? ???? ????"
(xiv) If the incident as indicated in the FIR has occurred then in that eventuality the same ought to have been informed by the witnesses of inquest including Ranjit Yadav son of deceased and should have been indicated in the inquest.
(xv) Injured witness Rambilas Rawat @ Ram Kishan was admitted at Appollo Hospital, Lucknow on 12.04.2024 and was operated on 13.04.2024 and discharged on the same day, which is apparent from the discharge summary annexed at Page No.57 of the paper book and this discharge summary further indicates that Rambilas Rawat @ Ram Kishan sustained gunshot injury.
(xvi) The discharge summary further indicates that fire arm injury was caused by some 'known persons' at left side lower chest area and date of incident indicated in the same is 02.04.2024, which is to be taken as 12.04.2024 being typographical error as column of date of admission indicates as 12.04.2024.
(xvii) Thus, injured Rambilas @ Ram Kishan did not indicate, at the first instance, the names of the accused persons named in the FIR.
(xviii) The injury report of Jai Karan Yadav annexed at Page 61 of the paper book refers the complain of headache but not gunshot injury. Thus, it can be deduced that at the time of incident gunshot injury was not sustained by the alleged injured Jai Karan Yadav. In this view of the matter, it can be inferred that Jai Karan Yadav is a planted witness.
(xix) The injury report of injured witness namely Amit Kumar @ Chhotu dated 15.04.2024 annexed at Page No. 63 of the paper book also does not reflect that this injured witness sustained any gunshot injury.
(xx) A conjoint reading of injury report and the statement of alleged injured witness namely Amit Kumar @ Chhotu annexed at Page No. 63 and Page No.77, respectively, of the paper book, would show that this injured witness has not sustained any gunshot injury. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that this injured witness is also a planted witness.
(xxi) Alleged eye-witness namely Mohd. Saleem, in fact, is not an eye witness and he has not seen the incident because as per his statement before the Investigating Officer he was present in the house, if it is presumed that what he has stated is correct.
(xxii) Another alleged eye-witness namely Ranjeet Yadav son of deceased is not a truthful witness. It is for the reason that he is also the witness of inquest and at the time of inquest he has not stated the facts indicated in the FIR and after setting up case against the appellant and others co-accused in FIR, he has supported the case set up in the FIR.
(xxiii) Other alleged eye-witnesses namely Govind Kumar, Ajit Kumar Rawat and Sandeep Kumar are in fact are also not eye-witnesses of the said incident.
(xxiv) No doubt on account of gunshot injury, one person namely Anant Ram has expired but it is not on account of firing, as alleged in the FIR, by the appellant and other co-accused. He must have sustained the gunshot injury on account of 'Harsh Firing' (???? ???????) in the 'Tilak ceremony'.
(xxv) The post-mortem report of the deceased indicates the downward injury and if fire was shot from front or back, the said gunshot injury could not have been indicated by the autopsy surgeon in the post-mortem report.
(xxvi) The entry wound is at the back side of the neck of deceased and thus, it also proves that gunshot injury was sustained in 'Harsh Firing' (???? ???????).
4. Learned AGA and also Sri R.D. Shahi, Advocate, and Sri Sushil Kumar Misra, Advocate, appearing for the informant-complainant, based upon the statement(s) of injured witnesses and also the eye-witnesses, vehemently, opposed the prayer of the appellant for bail. It is stated that the injured witnesses have supported the story of the prosecution, as indicated in the FIR and in the same tune, the alleged eye-witnesses have stated the facts, as indicated in the FIR. It is also stated that the deceased has sustained the injury indicated in the post mortem report as he was rescuing Rambilas @ Ram Krishan. It is also stated that the appellant is having criminal antecedents.
5. In response, learned counsel for the appellant stated that criminal history of the appellant has already been explained. He also stated that it is not the case of prosecution that the deceased sustained gunshot injury while he was rescruing Rambilas @ Ram Krishan, which is apparent from FIR and statements of witnesses of prosecution and accordingly the submissions to the same effect are concocted as the case in FIR.
6. Considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. as also learned counsel for the informant-complainant, F.I.R., impugned order, and criminal history, which has already been explained, including the following:-
(i) The discharge summary of the injured Rambilas @ Ram Krishan according to which the injury was caused by some known persons but name has not been disclosed;
(ii) Opinion regarding cause of the death shown in the inquest report of which Ranjit Yadav son of deceased, who subsequently changed his version by making allegations against the accused persons;
(iii) Jai Karan Yadav and Amit Kumar @ Chhotu have not received any gunshot injury in indiscriminate firing by seven persons;
(iv) The statements of alleged witnesses, who have not stated in clear terms that incident took place in their presence;
(v) Indisputed inimical relations between the parties on account of election for the post of 'Gram Pradhan';
(vi) Incident occurred at 'Tilak ceremony' and as such possibility of 'Harsh Firing' cannot be ruled out;
7. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed.
8. The impugned order dated 24.07.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow, in Bail Application No.5489 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.93 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 506 IPC and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station-Kakori, District-Lucknow, is hereby set aside.
9. Let the appellant-Shubham Rawat Alias Monu Rawat be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-
(i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.
(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
10. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
11. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.
Order Date :- 28.11.2024 Vinay/-