High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sumit Pandey @ Bunty v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 18335 of 2005  RD-AH 2182 (27 January 2006)
Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.
Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B. S. Rathore, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This is second bail application filed on behalf of the accused Sumit Pandey @ Bunty for release on bail in Case Crime No. 116 of 2003 (S.T.No. 441 of 03) under Sections 364, 120-B, 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Chetgang, District Varanasi. First Criminal Misc. bail application No. 5846 of 2005 of the applicant has been rejected by another bench of this Court by order dated 12.4.2005. This application has been nominated for hearing by this Bench and therefore it has been heard.
Prosecution case is that six years old boy of informant Rampoojan Pandy went to School in School Bus on 16.4.2003 but did not return back to the house. The informant gave information about the missing of the child on 16.4.2003 at P.S. Chetganj, same day at 8.30 p.m. Subsequently on 19.4.2003, the informant came to know that a dead body of child was found in the village Tarsara within the limits of P.S. Phoolpur, District Varanasi in burnt condition and on that basis he informed the Police. The informant and his family members came to that place and identified the dead body on the basis of skull, half burnt clothes, button, hooks and teeth of the deceased, as body of his son Shashwat. He was student in Saint John School, Madhauli, Varanasi and had gone to School in uniform on the date of incident. During investigation evidence also came that the accused was seen with two others by Amar Bahadur and other witnesses and there was also testimony of Lalji Mishra and Prem Narain Singh as that of last seen. It has also come in evidence that even after 8-9 years of the marriage of the informant no child was born to him and the accused applicant Bunty who is son of the elder brother of the informant was living with informant since 1988 and was getting education there. He contiued to live with the applicant. In the year 1996, a son was born to the applicant. As time passed Bunty came to realise that he was being ignored in the family of the informant and he also developed some bad habits and complaints were also received by the informant and his wife. Accused came to his father's house at Varanasi when the son of the informant was about three years old. But lateron, the informant was also trnasferred as Professor in Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. According to the prosecution case the accused applicant felt deprived because of the presence of the son of the applicant, as he could not inherit his property and therefore he was kidnapped and eliminated by the accused and others.
Learned counsel for the accused applicant has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case and that body could not have been identified as is apparent from the entries made in the G.D. Entry no. 57. He has further contended that this fact could not be brought to the notice of the Court when the first bail application was decided. But against it, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have contedned that all these facts were considered at the time of the hearing of the first bail application and there is no new ground for release of the applicant on bail. They have further contended that dead body was identified on the basis of skull and the teeth and the half burnt clothes and that there is incriminating evidence against the applicant which was recovered at his pointing out. It has also been contended that this accused had very strong motive to eliminate six years old boy. They have further contended that the evidence has been concluded and the Investigating Officer has also been examined in the case and it is at the stage of the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. At this stage the accused cannot claim any benefit on the basis of any entry made in the general diary at Rapat No 57 as it has to be assessed in the trial.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the cse, I do not find any ground to allow the second bail application of the accused applicant and the application is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. However, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the case and proceed under Section 309 Cr.P.C. It is expected that the accused shall cooperate in speedy trial. Learned Trial Court shall make every effort to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
Copy of this order be sent to learned Trial Court within a week.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.