Satyam Patel @ Rocky vs Union Of India Through C.B.I.
2022 Latest Caselaw 5330 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
 
(Lucknow)
 
*******************
 
Reserved
 
Judgment Reserved on 30.05.2022
 
Judgment Delivered on 22.06.2022
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 934 of 2020 
 

 
Applicant :- Satyam Patel @ Rocky 
 
Opposite Party :- Union Of India Through C.B.I. 
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Singh Atal,Arun Sinha,Neetu Patel,Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary,Ram Chandra Singh 
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.S.G.,Anurag Kumar Singh,Anurag Singh 
 
********************
 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. 

1. Heard Mr. Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the CBI.

2. This is an application for bail under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to Sessions Trial No. 977 of 2017 (Crime No. 52 of 2017), R.C. No. 0532017S0004, under Sections 302, 120-B, 201 IPC, Police Station CBI/ACB, District Lucknow.

3. Facts of the case are that one Ayush Sahu son of Shrawan Sahau was allegedly killed by Akeel Anasari and Azeem @ Babu on 16.10.2013. An F.I.R. was lodged by the deceased's father Shrawan Sahu wherein charge-sheet was filed against the aforesaid persons and others in 2014. Shrawan Sahu, father and informant was pursuing the said case. Akeel Ansari who allegedly has a criminal history of 17 cases hired contract killers allegedly belonging to Munna Bajrangi gang to kill Shrawan Sahu but before they could carry out the crime, the shooters were caught and a case Crime No. 57 of 2016, under Sections 307, 115, 120-B IPC against Akeel Ansari and others was lodged at Police Station Saadatganj, District Lucknow. Charge-sheet was also filed against the accused in the said case. As per the prosecution story, Akeel Ansari, who was on bail used to threaten Shrawan Sahu with dire consequences, if he continued to pursue the case involving the murder of his son Ayush Sahu. The accused Akeel Ansari on 12.01.2017 put a weapon on Shrawan Sahu's neck and again threatened him not to do pairvi of the said case. This led to lodging of an F.I.R. at case Crime No. 9 of 2017, under Sections 147, 506 IPC against Akeel Ansari and others by Shrawan Sahu. It is said that on 09.01.2017 the applicant herein Satyam Patel @ Rocky was arrested by the police of Police Station Thakurganj in connection with a criminal case in which charge-sheet was filed under Section 3/25 Arms Act read with Section 419 IPC. One country-made pistol with two live cartridges were recovered. The applicant was released on bail on 13.01.2017 in the aforesaid case under Arms Act, etc. and two persons, namely, Chand Babu and Mohd. Shabi Ansari stood surety for him. These two persons according to the prosecution were asked by Akeel Ansari to stand surety for the applicant for securing bail.

4. It is alleged by the prosecution that Akeel Ansari hatched a criminal conspiracy along with Satyam Patel (applicant), Aman Singh, Ajay Patel, Rohit Mishra, Vivek Verma, etc. in the house of the applicant Satyam Patel at Shivpuri Colony, Picnic Spot, Indira Nagar, Lucknow to eliminate Shrawan Sahu. In furtherance of this criminal conspiracy recce of house of Shrawan Sahu was carried out by Satyam Patel and Aman Singh. Vivek Verma, co-accused, provided an unnumbered black bajaj pulsar 220 motorcycle for transportation of the aforesaid two accused. Arms and ammunition were also arranged.

5. Akeel Ansari surrendered in Court in connection with a criminal case and went to jail on 27.01.2017.

6. It is alleged that on 01.02.2017, Satyam Patel and Aman Singh duly armed rode the motorcycle of Vivek Verma and reached Saadatganj area around 8 PM. Aman Singh was driving the motorcycle with helmet on his head and Satyam Patel was the pillion rider. They passed through the front of house and shop of Shrawan Sahu coming from Dargah Hazrat side to Bada Chauraha of Saadatganj, Lucknow and after few minutes they took another round of the house and shop of Shrawan Sahu on the motorcycle coming from Bada Chauraha side and going towards Dargah Hazrat side. Then they again came on the motorcycle form Dargah side moving towards Bada Chauraha. Aman Singh stopped the motorcycle. Satyam Patel got down from the motorcycle with helmet in his hand then Aman took the motorcycle towards Bada Chauraha. Satyam i.e. the applicant, walked towards the shop of Shrawan Sahu, put on the helmet on his head then took out the revolver with his right hand, entered the shop of Sri Shrawan Sahu and fired five bullets at him. He came out of the shop with revolver in hand and walked towards Bada Chauraha. Then he and Aman Singh fled the scene of crime on their motorcycle. The aforesaid activities were recorded in the three CCTV cameras installed at the house of Shrawan Sahu. Satyam and Aman went to the home of Ajay Patel where Satyam changed his jacket and jeans and then they left the place after parking the motorcycle used in the crime at some place. They went to New Delhi. On way, they informed Vivek Verma about the place where they had parked his motorcycle. According to the prosecution, Vivek Verma took the motorcycle from the place where it was parked and then went to the house of his friend Shivam Singh, Village Uttardhauna, P.S. Chinhat, Lucknow and parked it there.

7. The applicant, Satyam Patel was identified in the CCTVs by the Police Officers of Thakurganj who had arrested him in earlier case under Section 3/25 Arms Act read with Section 419 IPC on 09.01.2017.

8. The applicant, Satyam Patel and Aman Singh were arrested on 09.02.2017 from Ranibagh, New Delhi. While in police custody, the .32 bore stolen revolver used in the commission of crime was recovered on the pointing of the applicant from near the residence of applicant in Shivpuri Colony near Picnic Spot, Indira Nagar on 16.02.2017. The police also recovered five used cartridges and one live cartridge from the applicant at the time of arrest. This apart, four bullets were recovered from the body of the deceased Shrawan Sahu. One bullet was recovered from the scene of crime. The deceased had five firearm entry wounds and one firearm exit wound. Cause of death as per post mortem report is coma due to antemortem firearm injures. Other accused were also arrested. Forensic examination has been conducted by the Central Forensic Laboratory of the aforesaid bullets and cartridges as also the Revolver. The clothes worn by the accused including the applicant, the motorcycle, etc. were also recovered.

9. CDR details of the mobile allegedly used by the applicant and other co-accused has also been obtained, apart from the CCTV footage referred hereinabove.

10. Charge-sheet was filed and the applicant along with other accused is undergoing trial. The applicant has remained in jail since 09.02.20174 i.e. for about five years.

11. The contention of Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant was as under:

(i) The applicant is in jail for the past five years. Earlier 63-65 witnesses to be examined out of which 26 have been examined, but now as per the stand of the CBI a total of 101 witnesses meaning thereby 77 more witnesses are to be examined, therefore, there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future and the applicant cannot remain incarcerated any further.

(ii) The alleged eye-witnesses of the crime Vijay Kumar Sahu and Vinay Kumar Sahu, brothers of the deceased, have not supported the prosecution story in their statements before the Trial Court.

(iii) None of the family members who have been examined before the Trial Court have identified the applicant in the CCTV footage shown to them by the Trial Court and the photographs in respect thereof.

(iv) PW-14 Vinod Kumar Singh has not supported the prosecution story nor have the other witnesses who have been examined.

(v) Janardan Prasad Singh, police personnel of Police Thakurganj, who identified the applicant from the CCTV footage as being the one whom he had arrested in connection with the Arms Act case on 09/10.01.2017 has not even been produced before the Trial Court as yet although he was the best witness to support the prosecution story.

(vi) The applicant does not have any criminal history except one case under the Arms Act in which he is on bail.

(vii) There are discrepancies in the alleged time of commission of crime as mentioned in the FIR and as appears from the CCTV footage relied by the prosecution which completely belies the prosecution story.

(viii) The bullets recovered from the body of the deceased cannot be matched with the weapon allegedly recovered from the applicant but can only indicate the type of weapon which may have been used. Report of the forensic laboratory in this regard is not reliable as evidence.

(ix) The finger print report does not show any finger print, etc. on the revolver allegedly recovered from the person of the applicant. It, therefore, does not support the prosecution story.

(x) The mobile number referred in the CDR details annexed with the counter/supplementary counter affidavit by the CBI as that of the applicant is not in the name of the applicant, therefore, the said evidence is of no value.

(xi) Other accused, namely, Ajay Patel and Aman Singh have been enlarged on bail, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the CBI, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, contended as under:-

(i) The applicant was hired by Akeel Ansari who has a criminal history of 17 cases, to murder Shrawan Sahu. The chronology and sequence of events itself reveals the conspiracy hatched to murder Shrawan Sahu. The background of the case enhances the severity of the crime as first the son was murdered and then the father has been murdered merely to wipe out evidence and to influence the trial of the son's murder.

(ii) The crime has been committed in an organized manner by professional criminals.

(iii) Not only the offence is grave, if convicted, the applicant would get a minimum of life imprisonment or maximum of death sentence. Crime is such that it sent shock waves throughout the capital city of Lucknow, especially in the business community.

(iv) Akeel Ansari facilitated the bail of the applicant by providing two sureties Chand Babu and Mohd. Shabi Ansari who have deposed before the Trial Court on this count. On being released on bail, the applicant fulfilled his commitment to Akeel Ansari and carried out the murder of Shrawan Sahu.

(v) The CDR details collected by the CBI show that the applicant was continuously in touch with the other co-accused, namely, Ajay Patel, Akeel Ansari, Aman Singh, Vivek Verma, Faisal @ Bablu and Babu Khan during the period 01.12.2016 to 04.02.2017. Thereafter the mobile he was using bearing number 7880546290 went silent.

(vi) The .32 revolver recovered from the person of the applicant on his arrest that too on his pointing while in police custody, is a stolen revolver belonging to one Ziyauddin who has deposed before the Trial Court and identified the weapon as his.

(vii) The revolver and the empty and live cartridges recovered from the person of the applicant as also one bullet recovered from the scene of crime and four bullets recovered from the body of the deceased were sent for forensic examination and as per the FSL report they have matched. The bullet recovered from the scene of crime and some of the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased, (on microscopic examination, etc.), have matched as having been fired from the weapon recovered from the applicant. The empty cartridges recovered from the applicant have also matched as having been fired from the same weapon. All this is clinching evidence against the applicant.

Sri Anurag Kumar Singh refers to various authorities on the subject that even where bullets are recovered from the deceased's body, the same can be matched with the weapon alleged to have been used in the crime and it is incorrect to say that only the type of weapon used can be indicated. The extracts of relevant authorities are annexed as Annexure SSCA-2 and SSCA-3 to the second supplementary counter affidavit.

(viii) CCTV footage itself is an evidence before the Trial Court which shows the applicant alighting from the motorcycle with helmet in his hand, putting the helmet on his head and moving towards the shop of Shrawan Sahu and thereafter returning therefrom, all of which clearly establishes the main role of the applicant in the murder of Shrawan Sahu.

(ix) As regards PW-14, he has testified that the applicant along with Ajay Patel was residing in Shivpuri Colony and the weapon used in the crime has been recovered from nearby. The Trial Court is yet to appreciate the evidence of PW-14 and other witnesses as to what extent it is reliable.

(x) If the applicant is released on bail there is every likelihood that he will influence the trial and witnesses who are still to be produced therein. There is also every likelihood that he will flee.

(xi) The applicant has a criminal record and is a hired killer. He is a danger to society and if he is released it cannot be said that he will not commit other criminal acts. Therefore, considering the offence which is grave and serious in nature he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

(xii) As regards parity claimed by the applicant, Sri Singh submitted that the applicant's role is distinguishable from that of other co-accused who have been granted bail. Moreover, the applicant has criminal history. His is the main role in the crime. Therefore, he is not entitled to parity with other accused.

(xiii) Sri Singh also submitted that although 77 more witnesses are proposed to be examined it is not necessary that every witness will be produced before the Court. As soon as sufficient evidence is adduced against the accused, no further prosecution witness will be produced.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is of the opinion that:

(i) No doubt the applicant is in jail since 09.02.2017 i.e. for the last five years but the offence alleged to have been committed by him is grave and if convicted it would entail the minimum sentence of life imprisonment and a possible maximum sentence of death. In a case of murder, that too in the circumstance in which it is alleged to have been committed in this case, period of incarceration by itself would not necessarily entitle accused to be enlarged on bail if there are other good reasons to deny him bail. Reference may be made in this regard to the decisions of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala vs. State of Gujrat; (2008) 3 SCC 775, Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh; (2002) 3 SCC 598 Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav; (2004) 7 SCC 528 and Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another; (2018) 12 SCC 129.

(ii) The background of the case as per the prosecution is that son of the deceased was murdered in the year 2013 by one Akeel Ansari and his associates. Akeel Ansari has a criminal record of 17 cases. Akeel Ansari in order to prevent the deceased Shrawan Sahu (father of Ayush Sahu) from doing pairvi of the aforesaid case threatened him with dire consequences which led to lodging of criminal case against him wherein charge-sheet has been filed. Akeel Ansari even went to the extent of hiring contract killers allegedly belonging to Munna Bajrangi gang but they were apprehended in time. In this case also charge-sheet has been filed. When the deceased Shrawan Sahu did not desist from pursuing the cases against Akeel Ansari, especially the case involving murder of his son, then, according to the prosecution, Akeel Ansari hatched a conspiracy to murder Shrawan Sahu and with this design facilitated the enlargement of the applicant on bail on 13.01.2017 in the criminal case already referred hereinabove under the Arms Act, etc. by managing two sureties for him, namely, Chand Babu and Mohd. Shabi Ansari and within one month of being enlarged on bail the applicant is alleged to have committed the crime on 01.02.2017 in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy hatched by him along with others as already referred. Prior to it, barely 4 days ago i.e. on 27.01.2017, Akeel Ansari the alleged mastermind surrendered before the Court in connection with criminal case and went to prison. Thus, firstly the son Ayush was murdered then every attempt was made that the criminal case pertaining to the said murder is not pursued by his father-informant and when this did not happen, the father (Shrawan) was also murdered.

(iii) While the applicant was arrested from Delhi on 16.02.2017 one .32 revolver and five empty cartridges along with one live cartridge were recovered on his pointing during police custody. The revolver was a stolen one belonging to one Ziyauddin who is also a witness in this case and has deposed before the the Trial Court. His deposition is on record and according to the prosecution he has identified the weapon as his licensed revolver.

(iv) The report of the Central Forensic Laboratory, according to the prosecution, supports the prosecution story and the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased as also from the scene of crime as also the empty cartridges recovered on the pointing of the applicant after arrest, have matched as having been fired from the .32 revolver recovered on information provided by him. The revolver itself is stolen.

(v) There were six firearm wounds on the body of the deceased, five entry wound and one exit wound. Metallic bullets were recovered from the body which as per the FSL report have matched as having been fired from the .32 revolver recovered on the pointing of the applicant. The cause of death is mentioned - coma due to antemortem firearm injury.

(vi) An unnumbered black colour pulsar motorcycle allegedly used in the commission of crime by the applicant and Aman has been recovered on 15.02.2017.

(vii) According to the prosecution, during the period 01.12.2016 to 04.02.2017 applicant was continuously in contact with other accused Ajay Patel, Akeel Ansari, Aman Singh, Vivek Verma, Faisal @ Bablu and Babu Khan, details in this regard are mentioned in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the CBI. According to the CBI the mobile went silent after 04.02.2017 after the crime was committed on 01.02.2017. Akeel Ansari is alleged to have a criminal history of seventeen cases and is in jail.

(viii) As claimed, the CCTV footage collected by the CBI from the house and shop of Shrawan Sahu allegedly contain the footage of the accused-applicant along with Aman Singh. According to the CBI, witnesses have identified the applicant as the person alighting from the motorcycle in the CCTV footage. It has been said in para 10 of the supplementary counter affidavit that one police officer, Samar Bahadur Yadav Investigating Officer of the State police (PW-26) has identified the accused Satyam Patel and co-accused Aman Singh in the Court during trial by seeing the CCTV footage. Sri Sinha on the other hand submits that family members of the deceased and other witnesses who have been examined have not identified the applicant. While the testimony of the witnesses is yet to be appreciated and evaluated by the Trial Court, one cannot loose sight of the fact that the CCTV footage is an exhibit in the trial and many more witnesses, including Janardan Prasad, SI who had identified the applicant during investigation, are yet to be examined before the Trial Court.

(ix) As regards testimony of PW-14 Vinod Kumar Singh who though in his examination in chief has supported the prosecution story but according to the applicant's counsel in his cross examination he has denied having identified the applicant as the person in the CCTV footage/photograph and in this context counsel for the CBI says that different photographs/footage have been shown in the cross examination vis-a-vis those shown in examination-in-chief, his testimony is yet to be evaluated by the Trial Court along with other testimonies. According to the CBI counsel he has also proved that the applicant was residing in Shivpuri Colony where Ajay Patel the other accused was also residing. Sudhanshu Tripathi, PW-13, has also deposed about the applicant residing at Shivpuri Colony.

(x) As regards the plea of parity with other co-accused who have been enlarged on bail the Court finds that the applicant has been assigned the main role of firing at the deceased and murdering him. The deceased died of coma due to antemortem firearm injuries. Moreover, Akeel Ansari is in jail. Aman Singh has been assigned the role of driving motorcycle. Vivek Verma has been assigned the role of providing his unnumbered pulsar motorcycle for transportation of the applicant and Aman Singh. The other accused are only alleged to have hatched the conspiracy. Thus, the role of applicant is different from the other co-accused as such applicant is not entitled to parity with them. Moreover, the bail orders of the other accused do not mention any criminal history. Even if they had any criminal history as asserted by the applicant's counsel, it would not make much of a difference in view of the difference in the role assigned to the applicant in commission of the crime, especially as a stolen revolver was recovered on his pointing which was used for commission of crime, as alleged.

(xi) Janardan Prasad, Sub Inspector, Police Station Thakurganj, who has identified the applicant from CCTV footage during investigation, is yet to be examined.

(xii) Considering the nature of crime and the sequence of events from murder of Ayush followed by his father Shrawan's murder, in the circumstances already discussed, the allegation of killers being hired by professional criminals, the likelihood of the applicant influencing the witnesses who are yet to be examined as also the likelihood of him fleeing and also the possibility of commission of other criminal acts, cannot be ruled out.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case noticed hereinabove, especially the gravity of the offence, background of the case as mentioned hereinabove, the punishment which could be imposed if the applicant was convicted, the evidence collected and adduced by the CBI pointing, prima facie, towards applicant's involvement, although the evidenciary value of it including its reliability is yet to evaluated and judged by the Trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that merely because the applicant has remained in jail since 09.02.2017 and the trial is still pending with many witnesses to be examined, cannot be a ground for enlarging him on bail in the facts of this case. Moreover, as stated by Sri Singh, all the witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution need not necessarily be produced, if otherwise, sufficient evidence has been led. Equity in this regard can be balanced by directing the Trial Court to conclude the trial at the earliest

15. In view of the above, the application for enlargement of the applicant on bail is rejected. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, say within one and half years.

16. The observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and they shall have no bearing whatsoever on merits of the trial pending before the Court below.

[Rajan Roy, J.]

Order Date :- 22.06.2022

Santosh/-