Allahabad High Court
Kalla @ Jitendra vs State Of U.P. on 15 September, 2011
Bench: Ravindra Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20472 of 2011
Kalla @ Jitendra Vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.
Heard Shri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Bharat Bhushan Paul, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Satish Mishra and Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the case diary.
This bail application has been moved by Kalla @ Jitendra with a prayer that the applicant may be released on bail in case crime no. 161 of 2010, under Sections 363, 366, 302, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Eka, district-Firozabad.
The facts, in brief, of this case are that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Arvind Sharma on 29.6.2010 at about 7.30 a.m. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 17.6.2010 at about 7.15 p.m. or thereafter. The F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 363, 366 IPC against the accused Yatendra, Kalla @ Jitendra, Surendra, Gujji wife of Kalla, Suraj Mukhi wife of Surendra Singh and Rishi Babu alleging therein that Km. Lalita aged about 15 years, the daughter of the first informant was enticed and taken away by them. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found on 19.8.2010. On the same day, the inquest report was prepared. In the house of the accused Surendra in a hanged condition. According to post mortem examination report, dated 20.8.2010, the deceased has sustained four ante mortem injuries, in which injury No. 1 was ligature mark all around neck, injury No. 2 was over elue, injury No. 3 was lacerated wound on right side of the head, back portion 8 c.m. behind right ear and injury No. 4 was contusion on right side face. The cause of death was as a result of ante mortem strangulation. The applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Firozabad, who rejected the same on 17.1.2011.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the deceased Km. Lalita was having the love with the accused Yatendra @ Bhura, who was serving at tower, she has gone in the company of the accused Yatendra @ Bhura with her free will and consent on 17.6.2010. But the F.I.R. has been lodged on 29.6.2010. The first informant stated under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that she was kidnapped only by the accused Yatendra @ Bhura and Kalla @ Jitendra, she
was not kidnapped by other co-accused persons named in the F.I.R. he did not want to proceed further against them. The statement of Km. Lalita Devi was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she categorically stated that she had decided to perform the marriage with the accused Yatendra @ Bhura, she had gone in his company with her free will and consent, she was kept by him at the house of his relatives, they performed the court marriage, they obtained order not to make their arrest by the police in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12425 of 2010, she was living at the house of the co-accused Yatendra @ Bhura in village Nagala Dhansingh. But his elder brother, accused Kalla @ Jitendra was extended the threat to commit her murder. Ultimately, she was killed by way of strangulation. But there is no evidence to show that the applicant has committed the alleged offence. The deceased was living separately along with her husband. Except the statement of the deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she stated that accused Kalla @ Jitendra was extended the threat to commit her murder, there is no other evidence against the applicant. The dead body of the deceased was not found inside the house of Surendra Singh, father of the applicant in which the applicant was also residing. The applicant has been falsely implicated only on the basis of doubt and suspicion. The applicant is having no criminal antecedents. He may be released on bail.
In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that the deceased has passed the high school examination in the year 2010. The date of birth was 1.10.1995, she was a minor girl, she was kidnapped by the applicant and another co-accused persons and thereafter, she was killed by way of strangulation. The dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the applicant. After committing the murder her dead body was hanged to show that she herself committed suicide. The gravity of the offence is too much. The applicant and his brother committed the murder of the deceased. The applicant may not be released on bail.
Considering facts and circumstances of the case submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A., counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record, it appears that the F.I.R. under Sections 363, 366 IPC were lodged against the applicant and other co-accused persons. The deceased was aged about 15 or 16 year old, she was kidnapped, she was residing at the house of the applicant but she has been killed by the applicant and co-accused. According to post mortem examination report, she had sustained four ante mortem injuries. The cause of death was due to strangulation. To give the colour of suicide, her dead body was hanged by a scarf (dupatta). The dead body was found inside the house of Surendra Singh, the father of the applicant, where she was residing. According to her statement, she had performed the marriage with the accused Yatendra @ Bhura, she was residing in his house but accused Kalla @ Jitendra, elder brother of the accused Yatendra @ Bhura were extended the threat of committing her murder. 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, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.
Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.
Date: 15.9.2011
Ashish Nayan
