High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Khadag Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 19033 of 2006  RD-AH 16331 (19 September 2006)
Court no. 47
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19033 of 2006
Khadag Bahadur Singh..........Vs.............State of U.P.
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.
This application has been filed by the applicant Khadag Bahadur Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime no. 131 of 2006 under section 302 I.P.C. and Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act, P.S. Cantt district Varanasi.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Sameer Kumar Jha at P.S. Cantt on 7.4.2006 at 3.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 7.4.2006 at about 4.45 p.m. The distance of the police station was 5 kms from the alleged place of occurrence. In the F.I.R. no accused has been named. The F.I.R. has been lodged by S.I., who was on petrolling duty, alleging therein that he came to know that Smt Anoopa Singh alias Kranti Singh, the wife of the applicant, has been shot dead. After lodging that information the first informant came at the place of occurrence and saw the dead body, thereafter, the inquest report was prepared on 7.4.2006. The applicant himself given an application to the S.H.O. of P.S. Cantt, Varanasi mentioning therein that in the night of 6/7.4.2006 at about 1.00 a.m. he heard the sound of weeping of his son aged about 14 months and he provided milk in a bottle to his son, thereafter, he heard the sound of knocking the door for opening the same, then one unknown person having a firearm weapon asked him to go inside the house, one unknown person was also in the company of that miscreant, the deceased also came there and she was pushed by the miscreants, consequently, both fell down on sofa, then the second miscreant caused firearm injury on the head of the deceased by the country made pistol. He again tried to discharge the shots, but the same could not be done. Again the second miscreant discharged the shot by country made pistol and fled away from the place of occurrence. The applicant also took the licensed gun of his father and came at the door and discharged two shots in the air, thereafter, the applicant went to his sasural to give the information of this incident, then went to Singh Medicals and thereafter, BHU, Varanasi and then Heritage Hospital, where the deceased was declared dead. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased has received one gun shot wound of entry having its exit wound. The injury was having blackening , tattooing and scorching.
Heard Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar and Sri Sameer Jain learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Sudist learned counsel for the complainant.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that :
(i)The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He is the husband of the deceased. His accusation came into light during investigation. The deceased was shot dead by some unknown persons in the dark hours of night. The applicant himself went to his sassural to give the information of the said incident on the same day i.e. 7.4.2006. The applicant moved an application to the police station concerned narrating the entire prosecution version.
(ii) The father of the deceased was present at the time of preparation of the inquest report. He has not raised any objection. The I.O. recorded the statement of Kalpnath Singh the father of the deceased on 11.4.2006, who stated that the applicant had confessed his guilt on 22.4.2006. Rajesh Kumar Singh the brother of the deceased moved an application under Sections 156(3) Cr. P. C. against the applicant and his family members alleging therein that his sister has been murdered by the applicant and his family members in respect of demand of dowry.
(iii) During investigation it was found that the allegation regarding demand of dowry was false, therefore, the charge sheet has been submitted only against the applicant under Section 302 I.P.C.
(iv) The next evidence against the applicant is that from the place of occurrence 9 mm bore pistol's cartridges were recovered and the recovery of 9 mm bore pistol has been shown at the pointing out of the applicant on 15.4.2006 and the F.I.R. under Sections 3/25 Arms Act was also lodged against the applicant on 15.4.2006. The recovery was planted and it was not supported by any independent witness.
(v) The father of the applicant has sent a telegram to the SSP mentioning therein that on 12.4.2006 the local police forcibly took the applicant and torturing him. The recovery was made from open place which was having easy accessible to all.
(vi) There is no direct eye witness account. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The applicant is innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence, he has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the doubt and suspicion, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.
In reply of the above contention the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant submit that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. At the time of the alleged occurrence he was present inside the house. It has been admitted by him that in his presence 2 unknown miscreants committed the alleged offence, but the version given by the applicant is highly unreliable, because the applicant has not received any injury and the deceased had been murdered inside the room. The applicant did not go to the police station to lodge the F.I.R., but he went to the house of the parents of the deceased to show his innocence. It is pre-planned murder. The deceased has been murdered by the applicant by 9 mm bore pistol and the same has been recovered at the pointing out of the applicant from the campus of his house. It was not having accessible to all. The circumstances are not telling a lie. The applicant is main accused, who committed the murder of his wife, therefore, he may not be released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant, the seriousness of the offence, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
Dated: 19 .9.2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.