High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shiv Raj And Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 18471 of 2006  RD-AH 16393 (19 September 2006)
Court No. 47
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18471 of 2006
Shiv Raj and others Vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
This application has been filed by the applicants Shiv Raj, Guddu and Lallu with the prayer that they may be released on bail in case crime no. 953 of 2006 under sections 302/34, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Chandpur district Binjor.
The prosecution story in brief is that F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Ram Phal Singh at P.S. Chandpur on 22.5.2006 at 8.15 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred in between 16.5.2006 to 19.5.2006. The applicant and the co-accused are named in the F.I.R. The distance of the police station was about 30 k.m. from the place of occurrence. It is alleged that the deceased Anil aged about 9 years son of the first informant had gone to Jungle on 15.5.2006 at about 5.00 p.m. in search of bullock. He did not came back whereas the bullock returned back to the house of the first informant. On 17.5.2006 a report in respect of missing of the deceased was lodged at the police station concerned and on 19.5.2006 the dead body of the deceased was found in the field of Lalit. Its information was also given to the Police Station concerned. By that time he was having the suspicion about the cause of death that his son was murdered by the applicant and co-accused Ranjeet. The witness Subhash and Raju have seen the accused persons committing the murder of the deceased but due to fear they did not disclose the name immediately thereafter. According to the post mortem examination report the death was due to asphyxia due to suffocation.
Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant :
1.That the naming of the applicant is after thought because after recovery of the dead body information of missing was given by the first informant to the police station concerned on 18.7.2006 at 12.13. In that report it was mentioned that the deceased was missing since 17.5.2006 at 4.00 p.m. On 19.5.2006 he gave an information that the dead body of the deceased was recovered and it was lying in the field of one Lalit. In that F.I.R. the applicant were not named as accused even the inquest report was prepared on 19.5.2006 by that time the name of the applicants and others co-accused were not disclosed but after great thought and consultation on 22.5.2006 a detailed F.I.R. has been lodged by the first informant naming the applicant as an accused in which it was mentioned that the deceased was missing since 16.5.2006 at about 5.00 p.m. whereas time of missing was mentioned in the report dated 18.5.2006 as 127.5.2006 at 4.00 p.m.
2.That the naming of the applicant is after thought whereas the alleged eye witness namely Subhash and Raju were resident of the same village and reason of non disclosure of the name immediately after the alleged occurrence shows by the witness is not plausible.
3.That the statement of the alleged eyewitnesses was recorded on 13.5.2006. He also stated that he saw the deceased on 17.5.2006 at about 6.00 p.m. at that time he was caught hold by the applicant and his face was pressed against the ground that is why he died due to suffocation. The same statement was given by the eyewitness Raju. His statement was recorded on 23.5.2006.
4.That the prosecution story is not corroborated by the medical evidence. The deceased has not received any ante mortem injuries but the cause of death was suffocation.
5.That the applicant is innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated due to proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. had been initiated by him against the first informant and his brother by way of filing an application-dated 17.8.1993.
6.That three is serious discrepancy in the time of missing of the deceased. The conduct of the alleged two eyewitnesses clearly shows they had not seen the alleged occurrence but due to village party bandi they disclose the name of the applicant.
In reply to the above contention the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel fort the complainant submits:
I.That the crop of Har Pal Singh, brother of the first informant was put on fire by the applicant and others in which they were penalized with a fine of Rs. 2,500/. They were having enmity with the first informant. The witness Subhash and Raju are related with both sides. They clearly stated that the deceased was murdered by the applicant and co-accused Ranjeet but due to fear of the applicant, they did not disclose their name immediately after occurrence. In case the applicant are released on bail, they shall temper with the evidence.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by he learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant are not entitled for bail. Therefore, prayer for bail is refused.
Accordingly this application is rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.