HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29115 of 2010 Chandra Prakash Applicant Vs. State of U.P. Opp.Party ***** Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.
Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, Sri Rajiv Gupta, Sri Rajrshi Gupta , learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.and Sri S.N.Singh, counsel for the complainant.
This bail application has been moved by the applicant Chandra Prakash with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 286 of 2010 under sections 302, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Badlapur, District Jaunpur.
The facts, in brief, of this case are that FIR has been lodged by Nand Lal Yadav at Police Station Badlapur on 24.3.2010 at 9.45 A.M.in respect of the incident allegedly occurred at unknown time, the accused Chandra Prakash Yadav is named in FIR, it is alleged that the first informant got the information on 24.3.2010 that the dead body of the deceased Chandan Yadav was lying on the railway track, his head was separated from the trunk, then he along with some other persons came to the place of occurrence and saw the trunk lying on the railway track and his head was lying at a distance of about 10 or 15 paces. It is alleged that the deceased was called at the brick kiln by the accused Chandra Prakash Yadav in the night of 22.3.2010, the deceased was in the company of the accused chandra Prakash Yadav, the amount of Rs. 7.5 lakhs was given to Chandra Prakash for TCI Examination, on the assurance given by the accused that he would get the service definitely, the suspicion was made against the accused Chandra Prakash Yadav but prior to that the information was given to the police station concerned by Porter Sohan Lal on 24.3.2011 at 9.30 A.M. alleging therein that the dead body of the deceased was lying on the railway track, the head and trunk were separated. On that information the inquest report was prepared on 24.3.2010 , thereafter the post mortem examination was done on 24.3.2010. According to the post mortem examination report,the deceased had sustained 6 injuries, in which injury no. 1 was noted as head and neck is separated from thorax , injury no.2 was lacerated wound on left elbow, injury no.3 was contusion on the forearm having the fracture, injury no.4 was lacerated wound in the left thigh just below buttock, injury no. 5 was noted as right leg is separated from thigh just below knee joint, injury no.6 was lacerated wound on back of knee.
The applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge Jaunpur, who rejected the same on 15.6.2010.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused Chandra Prakash has been named in FIR, on the basis of doubt and suspicion. According to the FIR, there is no eye witness account, during investigation, the statements of some witnesses have been recorded who have made allegation against the applicant. It is a case of circumstantial evidence but the chain of the circumstance is not complete. According to the investigation, the evidence of last seen has been collected and there is no evidence to show that the amount of Rs. 7.5 lakhs was given by the deceased to the accused Chandra Prakash for providing the service. According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased has died in a train accident, the statement of the witnesses recorded by the I.O.during investigation are wholly unreliable, the FIR of this case is delayed, there is no explanation of delay in lodging the FIR, there is no independent witness to support the prosecution version. The applicant has been falsely implicated due to local party-bandi. The FIR of this case is ante timed also. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or at his pointing out. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent, he is in jail since 30.3.2010 , he may be released on bail.
In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A.and the learned counsel for the complainant that it is a case in which the deceased had paid the amount of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs to the accused Chandra Prakash, out of which Rs. 3.5 lakhs were given for providing the service and Rs. 4.0 lakhs were given with regard to Brick kiln , the accused Chandra Prakash has cheated the deceased and did not return the money, but the deceased has been killed by the accused Chandra Prakash and his associates with a dishonest intention. The deceased was called by the accused Chandra Prakash on 22.3.2010 at brick kiln ,but the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 24.3.2010 from a railway track, the mobile's battery and SIM of the deceased were also lying there. During investigation, the statement of witness Virendra Kumar Yadav was recorded. He stated that on 23.3.2010 at about 8.00 P.M. he saw the deceased in the company of accused Chandra Prakash Yadav, Bablu Yadav and Sewan Das Yadav, at that time they were taking the juice, the deceased was offered by the witness Virendra Kumar Yadav to stay at his village but he refused by saying that he will stay at the Brick kiln where the co-accused Surya Nath Yadav was cooking the food, he also stated that he was having the need of Rs. 2 Lakhs, for which he was called by accused Chandra Prakash Yadav to make the payment, thereafter the accused had gone in the company of Chandra Prakash Yadav and others on the motor cycle, at about 9.30 P.M. the witness Virendra Kumar Yadav and other went to brick kiln, at that time the deceased, the accused Chandra Prakash, accused Ankesh alias Bablu Yadav, accused Surya Nath Yadav and accused Sewan Das Yadav were taking meal, the labourers were also present there. At the arrival of Virendra Kumar and others, the deceased and others have hidden the bottle of liquor because they had taken the liquor, but the deceased Chandan Yadav had not taken the liquor. In the morning, the dead body of the deceased was found on the Railway track, such statement was given by the witness Sandeep Yadav also. The chain of the circumstance is complete, there was a motive to commit the alleged offence . The bail application of co-accused Surya Nath Yadav alias Nankhai has been rejected by another bench of this Court on 14.7.2010 ,therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail.
Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of case diary, it appears that during investigation, the I.O.has collected the evidence to show that till the night of 22.3.2010, the deceased was in the company of the applicant, in the morning the dead body of the deceased was found on the railway track, the motive has been attributed by the prosecution to the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
Dated : October 12 , 2011.
Su