Allahabad High Court
Ajay Kumar Singh vs Central Bureau Of Invetigation ... on 17 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15599
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4145 of 2023
Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Invetigation Thru.Superitendent Of Police Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Bahadur Singh,Anita Singh,Ashok Kumar Mishra,Pankaj Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri I.B. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri N.B. Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the C.B.I. and perused the records.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Sessions Case No.9073 of 2022, F.I.R. No.RC 0532021S0010/SCB/LKO, under Sections 34 r/w 302, 330, 331 & 218 r/w 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station CBI/SCB/LKO, District Lucknow.
3. Initially, an F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 33 of 2021 was lodged under Section 356 I.P.C. on 01.02.2021 regarding a robbery committed by three motorcycles borne miscreants on a highway. After about ten days since lodging of the aforesaid F.I.R., the involvement of one Krishna Kumar Yadav @ Pujari is claimed to have come to light. Krishna Yadav @ Pujari died in police custody and his brother Ajay Kumar Yadav lodged the F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 38 of 2021 on 12.02.2021 against (i) S.O.G. Team Jaunpur, (ii) S.O. Baksa Ajay Kumar Singh (the applicant) and (iii) other police persons of Thana Baksa stating that at about 3:00 P.M. on 11.02.2021, a S.O.G. Team and S.O. Baksa Ajay Kumar Singh came to his house along with some police force and they took away the informant's brother Krishna Kumar Yadav @ Pujari to the police station; that his brother was not involved in any criminal case; that the S.O.G. and S.O. Baksa detained him in the police station with intention to entangle him in some false case, that at about 8:00 P.M. S.O. Baksa and about 10 other police persons went to the informants house, they broke open the lock of a box and took away Rs. 60,000/- and some goods and they hurled dirty abuses on the ladies present in the house; that the S.O.G. in charge and S.O. Baksa along with 10 to 12 other police persons went to the informant's home at about 12:30 in the night along with the informant's brother and his brother was unable to stand and he was crying and asking his mother to save him and he was stating that the police persons would kill him. In the morning the informant got an information that his brother had died in police custody.
4. The post-mortem examination report of the body of the deceased mentions contusions on both buttocks and a contusion in scapular region and the doctors, who had conducted the post-mortem examination, opined that the injuries were not sufficient for causing death and they further opined that the death was caused due to shock and syncope as a result of the ante-mortem myocardial infarction.
5. Subsequently, the CBI took up the case and lodged a First Information Report on 17.09.2021 at 06:15 pm as RC0532021S0010, under Sections 302, 394, 452, 504 IPC, P.S. S.C.B. Lucknow, District Lucknow against S.O.G. Team, Ajai Kumar Singh S.O. Baksa (the applicant) along with the other police personnel of Police Station Baksa, District Jaunpur.
6. The C.B.I. completed the investigation and has submitted a charge sheet on 22.02.2022 under Section 34 read with Sections 302, 330, 331, 218 read with Section 120-B IPC in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Lucknow against 19 police officials, including the applicant, who was posted as S.H.O. Baksha. The applicant has surrendered to custody on 02.12.2021.
7. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that an information regarding a girl having gone missing from Village Abhay Chand Patti was received in Police Station Baksha between 07.45 to 08.00 p.m. on 11.02.2021. The applicant and some other police persons had gone away from the police station to find out and recover the missing girl. The deceased was interrogated by the SOG Team in the police station while the applicant was away. The applicant had taken away the deceased to his house at about 12-12.30 a.m. in the intervening night of 11/12.02.2021 for making recoveries and at that time the deceased was not able to stand on his own legs and he was crying, asking his mother to save him and he expressed an apprehension that the police persons will kill him. Thereafter the deceased complained of pain in his abdomen. He was taken to the Community Health Centre, Naupedwa Jaunpur at about 1.30 a.m. on 12.02.2021. As his condition was very serious and his pulse and B.P. could not be detected he was referred to District Hospital Jaunpur at about 1.55 a.m. He reached District Hospital Jaunpur at 3.35 a.m. on 12.02.2021 where he was declared brought dead on arrival.
8. The postmortem examination report of the dead body was conducted by a team consisting of three doctors and the following ante mortem injuries were mentioned in the postmortem examination report:
"i. Contusion present on both buttocks of size 30X20 cm. which is Bluish Brown in colour.
ii. Contusion present in both scapular regions of size 15X8 cm, which is bluish Brown.
c. Contusion present on left arm laterally of size 10X8 cm which is Bluish Brown in colour. The cause of death was given as due to shock and syncope, as a result of ante mortem myocardial infarction."
9. The C.B.I. sought opinion of Joint Director, Medico Legal, State Medico Legal Cell, Lucknow U.P., who opined that the cause of death established is shock, that is not due to myocardial infarction but it can be precipitated by vasovegal inhibition or ante-mortem injuries present on the victim's body especially the big ones which is not checked in post mortem examination. The Medical Board of Forensic Medicine Department, All India Institute of Medical Sciences vide its report CL.FM. No.17/2021 has observed that:
".... there are multiple injuries present over the body in addition to those mentioned in the post mortem report. All injuries present over the body are blunt force injuries caused by blunt objects/weapons/surfaces. The tram track contusions are caused by cylindrical objects like a rod, baton or lathi. All the injuries present on the body of the deceased are due to blunt force and are ante mortem in nature."
....the cause of death is shock due to cumulative effects of the multiple blunt force injuries sustained to the body. All injuries are ante-mortem in nature and fresh in duration. These injuries are only collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature."
10. The charge sheet mentions that the actual cause of death of Krishna @ Pujari was the injuries inflicted due to brutal beating by the accused police officials. The departmental action for major penalty has been recommended against the three doctors who had prepared postmortem examination report dated 12.02.2021. The applicant is said to have prepared a bogus fard/arrest memo in his handwriting after the death of the deceased stating that he was intercepted by police persons in the night of 11.02.2021 at about 9.50 p.m. from Pakdi Chauraha while he was passing by on his white Apache motorcycle and he confessed having committed a robbery and thereafter at his instance Rs.63,500/- and 13 mobile phones were recovered from his person/house. In order to explain the injuries on the body of the deceased it was falsely mentioned in the arrest memo that the deceased had stated that he had met with an accident at about 2.00 p.m. on 11.02.2021 and thereafter he was beaten by some persons. The applicant/SHO is said to have manipulated with the records by making entries number 5 and 6 in the general diary of police station Baksha with intent to cover up the illegal acts of accused police officials and to save them from legal action. This manipulated entry in the general diary was made from the user id of the applicant.
11. In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.
12. The C.B.I. has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the expert opinion given by Medical Board constituted by AIIMS, New Delhi, wherein it has been opined that there are multiple injuries present over the body in addition to those mentioned in the post mortem report. All injuries present over the body were blunt force injuries caused by cylindrical objects like a rod, baton or lathi. All the injuries were due to blunt force and were ante mortem in nature. No features of new or old myocardial infarction were seen over the myocardium externally. During autopsy, heart dissection involved only a single section in the ventricular region and examination of the coronary artery patency or the chambers of the heart was not conducted. On the cut section, ventricular walls and interventricular septum show normal myocardium. The Medical Board of AIIMS had an interaction with three doctors who had conducted post mortem examination of the deceased and the Medical Board observed that those doctors did not have much experience in the field of forensic medicine and postmortem examination. None of them had previously conducted postmortem examination in any custodial death case. They were not aware of NHRC Guidelines in custodial death case. The deceased has had multiple blunt force injuries. In such type of injuries, capillaries and other blood vessels get ruptured leading to internal bleeding in the underlying muscular layers and tissues causing excessive and fatal internal blood loss from the circulatory system,which then leads to circulatory collapse and shock. The Medical Board opined that the cause of death is shock due to cumulative effects of multiple blunt force injuries sustained to the body. All injuries were antemortem in nature and fresh in duration. These injuries were only collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
13. Transcripts of telephonic conversations of the applicant with other persons in close proximity of the incident, have been annexed with the counter affidavit.
14. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that mobile conversation reveals that applicant was not involved in actual beating of the deceased. The SOG Team interrogated the deceased in custody while the applicant was away from the police station in connection with search and recovery of a girl who had gone missing.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent/CBI has submitted that being the Station House Officer, the applicant was incharge of the police station and he was responsible for well being of the persons who were in custody. Any interrogation of custodial persons was conducted with the consent and authority given by the applicant.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has submitted that the bail application of co-accused Parva Kumar Singh, the Officer Incharge SOG has been rejected by means of an order dated 23.03.2023, passed by this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9782 of 2022. Another co-accsued Jitendra Singh, who was driver of the police vehicle was granted bail by means of an order dated 15.02.2023 by a coordinate Bench of this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29494 of 2022, which order has been set aside by means of a judgment and order dated 12.03.2024, passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.9816 of 2023.
17. The bail application of two other co-accused persons Raj Kumar Verma and Ramkrit Yadav have been rejected by means of orders dated 06.09.2022 and 17.08.2022, passed by this court sitting at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.39462 of 2022 and 10162 of 2022 respectively.
18. All the co-accused persons whose bail applications have been rejected or the bail granted to whom has been rejected by Hon'ble Supreme court, were part of the SOG Team or were posted at Baksha Police Station and were involved in investigation of F.I.R. No.38 of 2021.
19. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a co-accused Kamal Bihari Bind has been granted bail by this court by means of an order dated 25.05.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23717 of 2023.
20. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the allegation and material relied upon by the prosecution would attract exception 3 to Section 300 IPC, which provides that culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
21. Even if the aforesaid submission is accepted, the allegations make out a case for culpable homicide of a person in custody.
22. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, what prima facie appears at this stage is that the applicant was posted as SHO of Police Station Baksha, in which the victim was kept in custody and was assaulted brutally, resulting in his death. The arrest memo prepared by the applicant mentions that the deceased was taken into custody at about 10.25 p.m. on 11.02.2021 from Pakdi Chauraha, whereas the brother of the deceased had sent a whatsapp message to the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur at 05.39 p.m. on 11.02.2021 stating that his brother had been taken away by the police and he apprehended that his brother might be entangled in some false case. This contradiction indicates that the applicant has prepared false arrest memo. The charge sheet alleges that the applicant has made manipulations in the general diary of the police station. The victim was brutally beaten up in custody resulting in his custodial death. Being the Station House Officer the applicant was responsible for the treatment given to the deceased while in custody. The panel consisting of three doctors who had conducted the postmortem report had given a wrong report mentioning that the deceased died due to myocardial infarction and disciplinary proceedings has been ordered to be initiated against those doctors for this reason. Bail applications of co-accused persons Parva Kumar Singh, Raj Kumar Verma and Ramkrit Yadav, who are also police officials/members of SOG team have been rejected by this court. Co-accused Jitendra Singh was granted bail by this court but his bail application has been rejected by Hon'ble Supreme Court by means of an order dated 12.03.2024, passed in SLP (Crl.) No.9816 of 2023.
23. The only allegation against the co-accused Kamal Bihari Bind was that he was a member of the team which had gone to arrest the victim and he had signed the arrest memo. He was merely a Constable and, therefore, his role/responsibility cannot be said in any manner to be at par with the role/responsibility of the applicant who is the Station House Officer. Therefore, the applicant cannot be granted bail on the ground of parity also.
24. Without making any observation which may affect the outcome of trial, I am of the considered view that the aforesaid facts do not make out a case for exercise of discretion of this court by enlarging the applicant on bail.
25. Bail application is accordingly rejected.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)
Order Date :- 17.3.2025
Ram.
