Mukesh vs State Of U.P.
2011 Latest Caselaw 5112 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved 
 

 
Criminal  Misc. Bail Application No. 23766   of  2010
 

 
Mukesh                                                 ...... Applicant  
 

 
Versus 
 
State of U.P.                                         ...  Opp.Party
 

 
*****
 

 
Hon'ble  Ravindra Singh, J.

Heard Sri Dilip Kumar and Rajeev Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri B.A. Khan, learned counsel for the complainant.

This bail application has been filed by the applicant Mukesh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 442 of 2010 under section 302 IPC, P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri.

The facts in brief of this case are that an information to the police station Karhal was given by Sri Kamlesh Kumar on 17.4.2010 at 6.10 A.M. mentioning that his son, the deceased Charan Singh aged about 18 years was taken from his house in the evening on 16.4.2010 by the co-accused Subhash and the applicant Mukesh. The first informant was not permitting to go in the company of the applicant and other co-accused person even then they had taken the deceased. In the morning of 17.4.2010 at about 4.00 A.M. first informant received information that to know the whereabouts of the deceased who had gone thresher. On that information the first informant came to the field with Suresh son of Megh Singh and saw that thresher and tractor were present but nobody was present there. He saw the thresher in which body of the deceased was embedded but he could not know as to what manner the alleged occurrence had taken place. On that information the inquest report was prepared on 17.4.2010 and the post mortem examination was done on 17.4.2010 at 3.30 P.M. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had sustained ten ante mortem injuries. Thereafter the detailed FIR was lodged by first informant Kamlesh Kumar at the police station, Karhal on 6.5.2010 at about 7.00 or 8.00 P.M. The deceased was called by the applicant and co-accused Subhash from his house at the pretext of threshing the wheat crop. The first informant was not permitting because prior to five or six days, there had been a quarrel between the applicant and co-accused Subhash. The witness Sadho Singh and Nigaate Lal saw the applicant when they were taking the deceased at about 9.00 P.M. on the way. By that time they were extending the threats. On a quarry made by them it was told by the deceased that applicant and other co-accused persons were taking him on field for threshing work. On 17.4.2010 at about 4.00 A.M. it was told by one Jaipal Singh that the deceased was embedded in thresher. On that information the first informant came to the field and saw the dead body of the deceased embedded in the tractor, the tractor was also parked there, but the applicant and co-accused Subhash were not present there. The deceased was died but there was no blood in the thresher or near the thresher there was no crop of the wheat or straw of the wheat. This information was given to the police station concerned. On the same day witness Umesh Kumar and Mahesh Chandra saw the applicant and co-accused Subhash and two unknown persons. They embedded the dead body of the deceased at about 2.00 or 2.30 A.M. On 20.4.2011 it was apprised by the Subhash that on 19.4.2010 at about 8.00 P.M. the applicant and co-accused Subhash came there who stated that they had committed the mistake by committing the murder of the deceased because he was not paying their money and they asked for compromise. The applicant applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri who rejected the same on 19.4.2010.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the first informant is not an eye witness, in FIR there is no reference that the alleged incident has been witnessed by any person. The information was given by the first informant about the accidental death whose dead body was embedded/inserted in the thresher but it was mentioned that in the evening of 16.4.2011, the deceased was called from his house by the applicant and other co-accused persons, though the first informant was not permitting the deceased to go in the company of the applicant and other co-accused and in the morning the dead body was found. The report was scribed by Rajveer Singh that on 6.5.2010 i.e. after about 20 days of the alleged incident, an application was moved before the S.S.P.Mainpuri making the allegation against the applicant, the same has been registered as FIR. The first informant has been interrogated by the I.O. he narrated the same story as mentioned in the FIR but on important queries made by I.O. the first informant kept silence, he was asked as to why he did not reveal the event of quarrel between the deceased and co-accused Subhash which occurred about 5 or 6 days prior to the alleged incident and as to why he allowed the decease to go in the company of accused persons, he was again quarried as to whether he had given written application on 17.4.2010 on in correct facts about the death. He accepted that he had handed over the written information on the same day. Thereafter the I.O.had taken six affidavits from the family members of the victim. The said persons were, namely, Sadho Singh, the real brother of grand father of the victim, Nibhati Lal real brother of grand father of the victim , Umesh Kumar and Mahesh Chandra, the real uncles of the victim and one Subhash Chandra resident of Nagla Hare, the real maternal uncle of the victim, they had corroborated the concocted and improved version which had seen in the light of the day on 6.5.2010 for the first time. The statement of Subhash was also recorded showing that the applicant had made extra judicial confession. The I.O.had recorded the statement of other persons in the case diary. Except above mentioned statement there is no evidence against the applicant. The entire story of prosecution is totally false and concocted and cooked up. In the present case no blood was found either on the thresher or near the thresher. According to the prosecution version there was no wheat crop and straw. The witnesses, whose statements have been recorded by the I.O.are wholly unreliable and no reliance can be placed on such belated and after thought version, the applicant is having no criminal antecedent.

But the post mortem examination report shows that after sustaining the 10 ante mortem injuries including the crush injury, the bleeding would have taken place. It infers that the deceased was killed some where else thereafter his dead body was embedded in the thresher but during investigation, no such evidence has been collected by the I.O. to show the place where the deceased was killed. Even the prosecution is not clear as to how and in what manner the deceased was killed. The applicant is not involved in any criminal case, he is in jail since 4.6.2011, he may be released on bail.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A.and the counsel for the complainant that the names of the applicant and other co-accused have been disclosed at the first instance by the first informant , the applicant and other co-accused Subhash had taken the deceased from his house for working at thresher because the deceased was a poor person, aged about 18 years. The first informant had asked not to go in the company of the applicant and other co-accused persons even then, he was taken by the applicant and other co-accused Subhash, the applicant and co-accused Subhash are very powerful person, the deceased has been killed by the applicant and other co-accused persons only to teach the lesson to others also, in any way at the time of threshing there was no wheat crop because neither the wheat crop nor its straw was found in or near the thresher, it shows that by force the deceased was embedded in the thresher, the deceased had sustained 10 ante mortem injuries in which,injury no.8 was crush injury involving from the lower abdomen below umbilicus and waist ( left lower part of back ) to whole of left lower part, the deceased had sustained abrasion and lacerated wound also. It shows that by force the deceased was embedded in the thresher and he has been killed. It is also surprising that in the filed at the alleged place of occurrence, the tractor was there but applicant and other co-accused were not present there. It is a pre planned murder. The I.O.had recorded the statement of the witnesses, they have supported the prosecution story, the witness Umesh Kumar and Mahesh Chandra had seen the incident in between 2.00 and 2.30 A.M. when they were inserting the deceased inside the thresher. The applicant and other co-accused are very powerful person, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence, the applicant is having the association of criminals who are extending the threats to the first informant and other witnesses, the applicant has been challaned under section 2/3 U.P.Gangser Act, 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.and from the perusal of the record it appears that the name of the applicant has been disclosed by the first informant at the inquiry stage, the allegation against the applicant and co-accused Subhash is that the deceased was called by them from his house in the night of 16.4.2010 at about 7-8 P.M.for the tractor threshing and in the morning the dead body of the deceased was found embedded in the thresher, neither in the thresher nor near the thresher the wheat crop and its straw was found, the deceased had sustained 10 ante morem injuries including a crushed injury, during investigation, the statement of some of the witnesses have been recorded in support of the prosecution version, the deceased was a young man, aged about 18 years, the gravity of the offence is too much and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.

	However, considering the submission made by learned      counsel for the applicant that  the applicant is in jail since  4.6.2010, it is directed that the proceedings of the session trial pending against the applicant may be expedited  without granting unnecessary       adjournment to either of the side. 
 
	With the above direction, this bail application is disposed of.
 

 
Dated : October  14 , 2011.
 
RPD/Su