Allahabad High Court
Devnarain @ Kishun Bhueya And ... vs State Of U.P. on 3 April, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved On:- 27.03.2023
Delivered On:- 03.04.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24692 of 2021
Applicant :- Devnarain @ Kishun Bhueya And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Yadav,Swati Agrawal Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Subhash Chandra Yadav
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Ms. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants; Shri Subhash Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Devnarain @ Kishun Bhueya and Ramjanam Chauhan, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 113 of 2020, under Sections- 302, 308, 506, 323, 294, 149, 148, 147, 336, 504 IPC, Police Station- Mehnagar, District- Azamgarh, pendency of trial.
3. There is allegation in the FIR that the son of the informant, Vijay Anand, was going to see his paddy field on 05.08.2020 at about 06:00 pm along with his mother when the applicant and four named co-accused made obscene comments against his wife. His son protested and then the co-accused, Ram Janam and the applicant started beating his son by iron rod. Co-accused persons, Israr and Rohit, caused him injury by bricks and co-accused, Chhedi Lal, threw his wife on the ground and she suffered fracture on her head.
4. After hearing the noise, the applicant and his nephew, Sonu, reached the spot and intervened. Thereafter the accused persons left the scene of incident after extending threats.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. Recovery of one rod and danda were made from the field of Ram Lakhan Saroj, seen by Ram Dular Yadav and Heera Lal Yadav, after 22 days. The statement of the mediator, Sonu, son of Jitendra and Ravindra son of Sita Ram, were not recorded who were the mediators in the incident allegedly caused by the applicant. In the statement of the mother of deceased, she did not named anyone as an accused. However, the other eye-witnesses admitted the incident. The forensic report of danda and rod has not been received as yet. Charge sheet has already been submitted against the applicant. The second statement of the mother of the deceased, Rita Devi, has been recorded on 28.09.2020 when the incident took place on 05.08.2020 wherein she has assigned specific role to the applicant of causing injuries to her son by iron rod.
6. Counsel for the applicant submits that there is no explanation of delay in lodging of the aforesaid eye-witness. She has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Harbeer Singh vs. Sheeshpal and Others, (2016) 16 SCC 418, and submitted that the delay in recording the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., should be explained. She has submitted that such delay casts doubt on the case of the prosecution. He has submitted that the applicant is in jail since 13.08.2020. He has no criminal history to his credit and belongs to poor strata of society. It has been submitted that initially the police implicated the applicant and other co-accused for alleged offence under Section 304 IPC but after chakka jam on the road by keeping dead body of the deceased on the road, investigating officer was compelled to implicate the accused under Section 302 IPC.
7. Counsel for the informant has further submitted that in the case of Harbeer Singh (Supra) the Apex Court has also held that mere delay in recording the statement of the witnesses not necessarily discredits their testimony. The Court may rely on such testimony if they are cogent and credible and delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
8. Counsel for the informant has further pointed out to the site plan prepared by the investigating officer which shows that the incident took place on the plot of the informant and not on the place of the applicant and other co-accused persons. This shows that the applicant side was the aggressor and the deceased was on his own plot when he was beaten by the accused and he later died.
9. Learned A.G.A has also opposed the bail application of the applicant.
10. This Court finds that the testimony of Rita Devi belatedly recorded by the investigating officer is cogent and credible and there is no contradiction in her testimony vis-a-vis the prosecution case set up in the first information report. In the statement of P.W-1 recorded before the trial Court he has not been cross-examined on this aspect as yet.
11. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that there is ample evidence against the applicants which does not entitles them to be enlarged on bail at this stage.
12. The bail application is accordingly, rejected.
13. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicants as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year, from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 03.04.2023
Rohit
