Allahabad High Court
Khunni @ Ram Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 14 October, 2011
Bench: Ravindra Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19795 of 2011
Khunni @ Ram Prasad ...... Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ... Opp.Party
*****
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.
Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, Sri P.N.Tripathi, Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., Ms. Anju Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant.
This bail application has been moved by the applicant Khunni @ Ram Prasad with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 202 of 2011 under sections 302, 120-B I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 27 Arms Act, Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur.
The facts, in brief, of this case are that the FIR has been lodged by Smt. Sheela Devi on 25.4.2011 at 1.00 A.M. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 25.4.2011 at about 00.30 A.M.in which co-accused Sangam, Pudhhi Pasi, Sanjay Dube @ Panda are named as accused and one accused was unknown. It is alleged that in the night of 24/25.5.2011 at about 12.30 O'clock on account of old enmity the accused persons came to the house of the first informant and committed the murder of the husband, father- in -law and son of the first informant. It was specifically alleged that the husband of the first informant was killed by co-accused Sangam, father in law of the first informant was killed by co-accused Puddhi and son of the informant was killed by co-accused Sanjay. The accused persons were inquiring about Ram Bali, the dewar of the first informant for the purpose of committing his murder, it was replied by first informant that he was not present at the house, on firing and shouting, Ram Bali, the Dewar of the first informant, also came from the room where he was sleeping. The deceased Chulbul Maurya had sustained two gun shot wounds of entry, the deceased Nagendra Maurya had sustained one fire arm wound of entry having its exit wound and the deceased Brij Lal Maurya had sustained two fire arm wounds of entry. The applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, who rejected the same on 30.5.2011.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in FIR, the FIR of this case is ante- timed. The applicant was having tractor threshing machine, he was doing threshing work on hire basis by move from one place to another, prior to the alleged incident, he had done the threshing work at the house of Sanjay , the co-accused Sanjay did not pay the amount of threshing that is why some altercation has taken place between them, due to this enmity, the name of the applicant has been introduced by the co-accused Sanjay. It is further contended that the name of the applicant has been disclosed by the first informant in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 1.5.2011 in which she stated that the co-accused Sangam, co-accused Puddhi, co-accused Sanjay alias Panda, co-accused Halim and the applicant hatched a conspiracy at the PAHI of one Sajjan Yadav in the night of 24/25.4.2011, where they took the liquor and meal including the chicken, in furtherance of that conspiracy all the 3 deceased persons have been killed , the co-accused Halim was standing on the road and watching the movement of the persons. The deceased Chulbul had lodged a case of robbery against Sajjan Yadav, applicant is son in law of Sajjan Yadav. The applicant has been falsely implicated on account of enmity with Sanjay, the applicant was having no concern with other co-accused and the family of the first informant, the name of the applicant has been disclosed by the co-accused Sanjay, the naming of the applicant is after thought, he is in jail since 2.5.2011, 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 name of the applicant has been disclosed by the first informant in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., it is alleged that at the exhortation of the Puddhi Pasi, co-accused Sanjay discharged the shot causing the injuries on the person of the husband of the first informant, after sustaining the injuries he died. Co- accused Sangam Pasi caused the gun shot injury to the deceased Chulbul and the deceased Nagendra Maurya has been killed by the applicant. The prosecution story is supported by the witnesses Nisha Devi, Ram Bali Maurya, the active role of causing the gun shot injury is assigned to the applicant., the first informant was totally disappointed because her husband, son and father in law were killed that is why the name of the applicant could not disclose in the first information report. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of co-accused Halim, who has been released on bail by this Court on 10.8.2011 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21204 of 2011, the gravity of the offence is too much, he 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 the record it appears that it is a case in which 3 persons of a family, who were son, husband and father in law of the first informant were killed, though the name of the applicant has not been disclosed in the first information report but during investigation the name of the applicant has been disclosed by the first informant and two other witnesses, the gravity of the offence is too much, the case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of the co-accused Halim who has been released on bail by this Court on 10.8.2011 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21204 of 2011 and without expressing any opinion the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitle for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.
Accordingly the bail application is rejected.
Dated : October 14, 2011.
Su
