HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ? A.F.R. Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28264 of 2014 Applicant :- Dashrath Ahirwar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Chandra Mishra,Rajeev Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant which is taken on record.
This is second bail application filed by the applicant Dashrath Ahirwar with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in case No.73 of 2013, u/s 364 I.P.C., P.S. Todhi Fatehpur, district Jhansi. First one having been rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sharma (Now retired) on 8.7.2014 for non-prosecution.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
This is a case in which an eighty one years old man is said to have been abducted by the applicant with the help of his other criminal associates at the point of gun after making a criminal assault on him in his own house.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that co-accused Sita Ram has already been granted bail by the aforesaid same Bench on 24.7.2014. The case of the applicant is being claimed to be of parity and therefore, the submission is that he should also be released on bail. This is the soul point pressed before the court. No other argument has been placed.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has drawn the attention of the court to the bail order passed in favour of co-accused Sita Ram and has pointed out that according to the order the case of the applicant Dashrath Ahirwar and his four other associates stands distinguishable and therefore, no case for bail on the ground of parity is made out.
The A.G.A. has also drawn the attention of the court to the statement of the abductee Balram in which overt acts have been alleged against applicant Dashrath Ahirwar and it has been stated by him that before the incident in question the applicant had come to his house and being a relative had expressed the need to be accommodated in the house for a night so that he may go in the morning to his desired destination. As is the normal Indian tradition, he was extended the usual hospitality and was given a place to sleep and spend the night. During the night, after everybody fell asleep, the applicant pretended to have an aching-stomach and requested the abductee to open the door. It further transpires from the statement that on being so requested the abductee for humane considerations opened up the door. Thereafter, the moment doors were opened, Dashrath Ahirwar-applicant who was having a gun and 3-4 other associates of him barged into the room. The victim was caught and then lifted up and abducted in a most heartless manner. The hands of abductee was tied up and cloth was stuffed in his mouth. Other details have also been given by the abductee which need not be produced in any great detail. Suffice it to say that neither the advanced age of the octogenarian victim nor his relationship with the applicant could evoke any mercy in the hearts of the accused nor did it soften their brutality. It further transpires from the statement that later on as the providence would have it, the vehicle in which the abductee was being carried away by the accused persons, met with an accident and over turned which attracted several people on the spot. The applicant along with other associates of him broke open the window panel pane and fled away making their escape good. The people who gathered on spot thereafter retrieved the abductee out of the vehicle.
Co-accused Sita Ram was also said to have been sitting in the car but he was not involved in the initial act of kidnapping. That seems to be the reason that a distinction was drawn by another Bench while granting bail to co-accused Sita Ram. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that period of detention of the applicant is also not so prolonged which by itself may be made the basis to release him on bail on the ground of long detention.
After considering the record in the light of the several arguments made at the bar the court is of the view that in the aforesaid circumstance the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Sita Ram. Looking to the gravity of offence and the nature of the evidence substantiating the charge, no case for bail is made out. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 21.5.2015 Rkb