Allahabad High Court
Surya Kant Sharma @ Shanu vs State Of U.P. on 9 January, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5095
Reserved On:- 12.12.2024
Delivered On:- 09.01.2025
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33196 of 2024
Applicant :- Surya Kant Sharma @ Shanu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Tiwari(Ac),Shyam Kishore Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Devendra Singh, Rajiv Lochan Shukla,G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri A.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Devendra Singh, learned counsel for the victim; Sri Manish Goyal, Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned AGA-I for State and perused the material on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Surya Kant Sharma @ Shanu, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 598 of 2023, under Sections- 302, 307 and 120-B IPC, Police Station- Majhola, District- Moradabad.
3. The allegations in the F.I.R are that because of old enmity named accused, Amit Kumar, Pushpendra, Aniket, Prabhakar and others, came at Parshvanath colony, Moradabad at about 06:00 p.m and caused murder of Anuj Chaudhary by firing on him. At the time of incident, Puneet Chaudhary, who was along with Anuj Chaudhary at that time, also suffered gun shot injury. Hence, F.I.R was lodged by Sandeep Singh on 10.08.2023 at 20.49 hours at P.S.- Majhola, District- Moradabad.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the prosecution case is doubtful since in the F.IR it is alleged that four named accused, namely, Amit Kumar, Pushpendra, Aniket and Prabhakar, caused gun shot injuries to the deceased as a result of which he died but in the application given to the police and in statement of mother of deceased, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has stated that four persons were standing outside a car while driver was sitting inside the car. After sometime three persons came on motorcycle. People standing near the car pointed out towards her son and they caused fatal fire arm injuries to his son from behind. Niraj Khatri, son of Mahendra Singh, brother-in-law of deceased, gave an application on 29.09.2023 to S.S.P., Moradabad wherein he stated that the applicant and co-accused, Mohit Chaudhary, Satendra Singh and Lalit Kaushik, are involved in the conspiracy of causing murder of Anuj Chaudhary and therefore they should also be made accused in this case. The incident took place on 10.08.2023 and Niraj Khatri, has given application on 29.09.2023 implicating Kamal Vir and three co-accused named above. No place and time of meeting of minds of the conspirator and hatching of conspiracy was disclosed. Co-accused, Mohit Chaudhary and Satendra, were in jail prior to 29.09.2023 and how they conspired with the applicant and Lalit Kaushik has not been explained.
5. He has further submitted that the victim, her two daughters and one son-in-law are roping in the accused with whom the deceased or the aforesaid persons ever had any enmity only to work out the case. It has been submitted that the informant, Santosh Singh, has disappeared after lodging the F.I.R and he is not appearing before the trial as the prosecution witness to prove the prosecution case instead one formal witness has been produced. The investigating officer conducted so far reveals that on the basis of planted recovery of weapons and cartridges, planted identity proofs and photographs of deceased and the confessional statements of accused recorded in police custody, number of persons have been falsely implicated in this case. The initial role of murder assigned in the F.I.R to four accused, namely, Amit, Pushpendra, Aniket and Prabhakar, stands diluted and eight new accused have been introduced and charge sheet has been submitted against 12 persons in all by the investigating officer. The presence of mother of deceased and his two sisters is highly doubtful and no credence should be given to their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Neither the injured, Puneet Chaudhary nor the security guard of the deceased have testified to their presence at the place of incident. Two sisters of deceased are married and not living in Moradabad. The date of incident was neither any festival like Rakshabandhan nor any other occasion which would have justified the presence of his sisters in the residential colony of deceased. None of the witnesses have stated that mother of deceased was living with him or had come to his flat at the time of commission of alleged crime. He has further submitted that the presence of some accused at Balli Dhaba and hatching conspiracy before an independent witness on 06.08.2023 is the creation of police for the purpose of falsely implicating the accused person. In case the aforesaid independent witness, namely, Jagdeep Singh Chauha, heard the accused, Amit, Aniket, Pushpendra and Vikas, planning to commit the murder of deceased and he knew Neeraj Khatri, why he did disclosed the same to the police on 06.10.2023 has not been explained. The police has created false evidence to falsely implicate the accused persons. Regarding the call details collected by the investigating officer, no F.S.L report has been received as yet. Merely by talking to each other it cannot be said that the accused were conspirators and they had committed the alleged crime.
6. It is clear from the above facts that the applicant has been assigned the role of main shooter along with two other co-accused.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no test identification parade of the applicant was conducted and has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P. Sasikumar vs. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police reported in Criminal Appeal No. 1473 of 2024 and has submitted that the three alleged shooters, including the applicant, were seen by the witnesses and, therefore, they could have been identified by them. In the same judgment, the Apex Court has held that test identification parade depends upon the facts of each case. In some case, it may be necessary while in other cases it may not be necessary. It depends upon the facts of the case. Where the prosecution witnesses identify the accused in court such test identification parade is not necessary. In the present case, the investigating officer has collected sufficient material against the applicant of taking money from co-accused, Neeraj Pal and Aniket, for executing the plan of murder of deceased. The applicant has criminal history of eight cases and it is not his first implication.
8. Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has submitted that the motive of crime is clear from the timing of incident. Smt. Santosh Devi, wife of Prabhakar and mother of Aniket contested election of Block Pramukh against the deceased, Anuj Chaudhary in 2021 and she won. The deceased was to bring a no confidence motion against Santosh Devi on 20.08.2023 but on 10.08.2023 co-accused, Prabhakar and Aniket, who are the husband and son of Santosh Devi, respectively, got the murder of deceased, Anuj Chaudhary, committed. These two persons had clear motive of commission of crime in dispute and from the investigation conducted by the police, it stands proved that with the help of co-accused, Neeraj Pal and others, they hatched conspiracy, hired shooters, namely, Suryakant Sharma, Akash and Sushil and got the murder of Anuj Chaudhary committed. He has submitted that when the F.I.R was lodged, apart from named accused, Amit Kumar, Pushpendra, Aniket and Prabhakar, unknown accused were also implicated. During the investigation, names of other accused along their roles have surfaced and hence they have been charge sheeted by the Investigating Officer of the police, finding credible evidence against them. He has submitted that the informant of this case has either been threatened or otherwise won over and therefore he is not cooperating, therefore, the victim has appeared before this court to oppose the bail applications of accused. He has submitted that the prosecution has not changed its version and its case is consistent. The motive of crime is very clear and hence the applicant does not deserves to be enlarged. The investigating officer has collected sufficient evidence against all the accused, including the applicant.
9. After hearing the rival contentions, this court finds from the record of investigation that the investigating officer has collected evidence and on the basis of same, apart from named accused, name of other unnamed accused came to light. Police has collected C.C.T.V footage from the place of incident wherein three motorcycle riders came and made fired upon the deceased on 10.08.2023. On the same day, the field unit recovered a pair of slipper, one bullet 315 bore, one empty cartridge 32 bore, three empty cartridges 315 bore, blood stained concrete and blood stained soil. Police sent the mobile numbers of named accused / suspected accused for surveillance and collected their call details. Statement of one, Monu Chaudhary son of Surendra Singh, was recorded by the investigating officer which pointed out to the motive of crime and the conspiracy hatched by number of accused to commit the murder of the deceased, Anuj Chaudhary. Name of accused, Neeraj Pal, was disclosed by informer informing that he is very close to co-accused, Amit, and he arranged shooters and provided money to them and also facilitated their escape after incident. Investigating Officer has collected C.D.Rs of mobile numbers of co-accused, Amit, Pushpendra, Prabhakar, Aniket and Neeraj Pal and has concluded that they were talking to each other prior to the incident. On 14.08.2021 accused, Aniket and Neeraj Pal, were arrested and recovery of one 315 bore tamanchha, two live cartridges and one mobile phone were made from Aniket and similar recovery was made from accused, Neeraj Pal. In the mobile phone of Neeraj Pal, his chatting with alleged shooter, Suryakant Sharma @ Shanu (applicant) was found. Neeraj Pal and Aniket disclosed the names of two more shooters, namely, Akash and Sushil, and also the motive of crime of election rivalry of deceased with mother of co-accused, Aniket, namely, Santosh Devi. Since the deceased was trying to bring no confidence motion again Santosh Devi, her son, Aniket, Neeraj Pal, Pushpendra @ Bhura and Amit, hatched conspiracy with three shooters, provided them money, arms and place for stay in the apartment of the deceased and got the murder of Anuj Chaudhary committed. On 22.08.2023 alleged shooters, Suryakant Sharma and Akash, were arrested and recovery of weapons used in the crime were made from them. Their statements were recorded by the investigating officer wherein they admitted commission of alleged crime. Suryakant disclosed the names and roles of Amit, Neeraj Pal, Pushpendra and Kamal Vir.
10. Ten days prior to the incident, Neeraj Pal, Amit and Pushpendra, came to the canteen of Suryakant Sharma and provided him two country made pistol, one pistol and white coats for the purpose of committing the murder of deceased. They also provided a flat to shooters in the apartment of deceased and received Rs. 2 lacs from them for committing the murder of deceased. The statement of Suryakant Sharma was corroborated by the statements of co-accused, Akash and Sushil. On 23.08.2023, Pushpendra was arrested and he admitted his role in the incident and disclosed the names of co-accused involved in this case, namely, Amit, Mohit, Prabhakar, Aniket and Neeraj Pal. He stated that the conspiracy for commission of disputed murder was hatched for an amount of Rs. 30 lacs. He admitted that co-accused, Suryakant, Akash, Sushil, Neeraj Pal and Aniket, had conversation with each other. Recovery of splendour motorcycle along with six photographs of the deceased were made from Akash @ Gatua; recovery of one registration certificate and insurance, one mobile phone, high security number plates of motorcycle and photograph of deceased was recovered from Suryakant; on the pointing out of Neeraj Pal, one tamanchha 315 bore, two live cartridges and one empty cartridge 315 bore, one register, one passbook, one adhaar card and one account slip mentioning payment of different amounts to Suryakant Sharma and name and mobile numbers of shooters was written; on the pointing out of Pushpendra @ Bhura, one tamanchha, two live and one empty cartridges of 315 bore, seven photographs of deceased and three photographs of shooters were recovered; on the pointing out of Aniket, one account diary and account slip mentioning the amounts given to Neeraj Pal on different dates and mobile numbers and names of shooters were recovered. Incriminating recovery was also made from the flat taken by the shooters on rent along with photographs of the deceased; recovery of two mobile phones, one Wagon R Car (used in the crime) was made from Amit and in his statement, he admitted the conspiracy and motive of crime and stated that co-accused, Aniket, Pushpendra, Neeraj Pal, Kamal Vir and Prabhakar, gave contract to three shooters for committing the alleged offence. Aniket provided Rs. 6 lacs to Pushpendra and Neeraj Pal, for the aforesaid purpose. Statement of guard of society, where the deceased resided, namely, Manak Singh and Deepak Singh, were recorded which are consistent with the prosecution case. D.N.A sample of accused, Aniket, Sushil, Suryakant, Pushpendra and Neeraj Pal, were taken and sent to F.S.L. On 30.08.2023, Rajni Devi, victim and mother of deceased, gave an application identifying three shooters on 29.09.2023. Brother-in-law of deceased, Neeraj Khatri, named Amit, Mohit, Satendra, Vikas and Lalit Kaushik, who had enmity with the deceased on different accounts as the persons involved in the alleged crime. Statements of sisters of deceased were recorded to prove that four persons were standing outside a car and they indicated the three shooters to shoot the deceased. Investigating Officer has also collected mobile location of accused, namely, Amit, Aniket, Pushpendra and Vikas on 06.08.2023 a dhaba where they hatched conspiracy for committing the murder of deceased and were over heard by an independent witness, Jagdeep Singh Chauhan. Details of repeated conversations of accused with each other have been collected by the Investigating Officer in C.D.- 37. Statements of two sisters of deceased, namely, Rajni Devi, Shivika and his brother-in-law, Neeraj Khatri, have been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein they have stated about the motive of accused, Amit, Mohit, Prabhakar and Pushpendra, for committing the murder of deceased. They have also stated about the role of co-accused, Lalit Kaushik and Kamal Vir, with whom the deceased have money dispute. Statement of other formal witnesses have also been recorded by the Investigating Officer. Statements of accused have been recorded which disclosed their relationships and their roles in the entire incident. Statement of Mohit Kumar Siddhu and another independent witnesses have been recorded wherein he stated that he saw Neeraj Pal, Amit and Pushpendra along with other person coming to canteen of Suryakant Sharma and providing him two tamanchha and one pistol along with white coats and asking him to commit the murder of deceased as early as possible.
11. It is clear that the motive of crime has been clearly attributed to co-accused, Prabhakar and his son, Aniket. Further, they do not appear to have committed the alleged crime directly but with the help of co-accused, Neeraj Pal, Amit, etc. They engaged three shooters, named above and got the alleged crime committed through them by providing them money and arms. The arguments regarding the presence of the victim, her daughters at the scene of occurrence or not cannot be decided at this stage. Their statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C read with the statements of accused persons point out to the roles of accused in the alleged incident. Whether the recovery of arms from the different accused and other incriminating material was planted cannot be decided at this stage from material collected by the investigating officer. Involvement of applicant prima facie appears in the alleged crime. It is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant at this stage.
12. The bail application of applicant is accordingly, rejected.
13. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order proceeding with the trial as per Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 09.01.2025
Rohit
