Judgment : Virendra Saran 1. APPELLANT Premendra Singh who was Inspector-in- charge Kotwali Mainpuri at the time of incident has been sentenced to Imprisonment for life in connection with the double murder of Shiv Pal Singh and his son Kul Bhushan Singh. A prayer for bail has been made in this appeal. 2. I have heard Mr. P. L. Sawhney, learned counsel for appellant at length and have gone through the record. The prosecution case which has been believed by the learned Special Judge is that the two deceased belong to a respectable family. Deceased Shivpal Singh was posted as Record Keeper of the District Magistrate, Mainpuri while deceased Kul Bhushan Singh was his son. They had no bad antecedents of any kind. According to learned Special Judge the accused had strong motive to commit the murders because on the date of incident early in the morning at about 4 a.m., some police constables of police station Kotwali went to the house of the victims on account of some suspicion and they assaulted the two deceased. One of the boys of the family (Kul Karan) fired from a licensed gun from the roof resulting in the death of constable Kartar Singh and the other constables hurriedly left the scene. After a short spell a large posse of police force arrived and stormed the house of the victims, they gave a severe beating to the inmates including women folk and the two deceased who all received numerous injuries. Thereafter Shivpal Singh and Kul Bhushan Singh were abducted and taken to P. S. Kotwali and lodged in the female. Hawalat. Later on they were taken out from Hawalat, handcuffed and forcibly taken away by the appellant and Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi (Circle Officer) on Jeep No. USY 1711. The evidence of the witnesses on the above points has been believed by the Special Judge. The learned Judge has further believed the evidence on the point that the appellant, CO. Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi and constables were seen in the way on the police Jeep alongwith deceased Kul Bhushan Singh and something was lying on the Jeep covered with blanket. Probably by that time Shiv Pal Singh, unable to bear the lashes, had broken down; It has further been found that two deceased were done to death near a canal and the bodies were consigned to the watery grave. Probably by that time Shiv Pal Singh, unable to bear the lashes, had broken down; It has further been found that two deceased were done to death near a canal and the bodies were consigned to the watery grave. Since one of the deceased was working as a Record Keeper in the Collectorate the employees waited upon the District Magistrate. A search party of the employees alongwith Sri Shiv Raj Singh, S.D.M. Mainpuri, PW 19. and P. C. Chaturvedi, PW 2 Office Bearer of the Union reached the canal and salvaged out the body of Kul Bhushan Singh and clothes of Shiv Pal Singh. Earlier PW 5 Shiv Mangal Singh saw the police men coming out of a Jeep. He heard sound of firing. He noticed that the police men were throwing something in the canal. He also saw blood lying on the spot. Photographs of the spot where the blood was found on the canal patri showing imprints of jeep tyres are also on the record. However, the photographer had no courage and gave evasive and vacillating answers. The learned Special Judge has believed the prosecution case and has given sound reasons for his findings. After giving my anxious consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the appeal, I am of the opinion that appellant has been found guilty of having committed double murder of two innocent persons in a most diabolical and cold blooded manner. 3. IT is mentioned in the FIR that besides murdering Shiv Pal Singh and his son Kul Bhushan Singh the police also murdered Dinesh another son of Shiv Pal Singh in a barbaric manner. However, Ulfat Singh who took courage to lodge the FIR naming the accused persons and the attrocities committed by them, is no more alive to narrate the facts of the horrendous incident. The circumstances of Ulfat Singh's death are not clear. In the FIR he has specifically named the appellant and some other police personnel but after Ulfat Singh's death the other named accused had to be acquitted. At any rate I do not take into account the murder of the boy Dinesh while disposing of this bail matter. 4. MRS. Sawhney, learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the bail matter of co-accused Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi (Circle Officer) was argued by a senior counsel (Sri P. N. Mishra). At any rate I do not take into account the murder of the boy Dinesh while disposing of this bail matter. 4. MRS. Sawhney, learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the bail matter of co-accused Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi (Circle Officer) was argued by a senior counsel (Sri P. N. Mishra). He has been granted bail by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kundan Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 1520 of 1993. I summoned the file of the said appeal. The order of Mr. Justice Kundan Singh read thus :- Admit. Issue notice. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant who has filed the copies of the statements of the witnesses duly supported by the affidavit. Let appellant Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing adequate sureties to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (D.A.A,), Etavvah." Perhaps the bail order of Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi has been obtained from Mr. Justice Kundan Singh by concealing material facts. In this connection I would like to mention that Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi had jumped bail on the date of his conviction and absconded. The judgment of the trial court was pronounced on 5-8-1993 and the learned Special Judge directed that Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi shall be taken into custody. Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi absconded. No application of any kind was moved before the learned Special Judge disclosing the reasons for his adsence. When the bail application of appellant was placed before me earlier I passed the following order on 18-8-1993 :- "list as part heard for consideration of bail on 8th September, 1993. The record of the trial court shall be summoned through Special massenger so that it is available on the date fixed. One co-accused Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi is absconding after conviction. The learned Special Judge Etawan has already cancelled his bail and issued a non-bailable warrant and notices to his sureties. His file relating to forfeiture of bonds shall be separated and retained by the learned Special Judge to proceed according to law. In case Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi surrenders, he shall be sent to jail and the learned Special Judge shall forthwith inform this Court so that the record be sent back for affording hearing to Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi on the question of sentence. In case Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi surrenders, he shall be sent to jail and the learned Special Judge shall forthwith inform this Court so that the record be sent back for affording hearing to Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi on the question of sentence. A copy of this order shall be also sent to learned Special Judge for necessary action through the special massenger who is being sent to fetch the record." 5. AFTER the above order was passed by me the special massenger was sent to Etawah on 24th August, 1993 to fetch the record and hence on 25th August, 1993 Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi appeared before Special. Judge and after hearing him on the question of sentence, he was sentenced to Imprisonment for life. It is noteworthy that in the affidavit filed in support of the bail matter of Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi, it is mentioned in para 4 of the affidavit that "appellant was on bail during the trial." There is not even a whisper in the affidavit that Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi absconded on the date of judgment (5-8-1993) and appeared in court after 20 days, 6. I have gone through the affidavit of Vijai Shanker filed in support of the bail application of Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi. This Vijai Shanker is from Allahabad. Out of 37 prosecution witnesses the copies of only 3 witnesses namely PW 1 Smt. Snehlata, PW 9 Ram Awatar Singh Chauhan and PW 20 Ram Pal Singh Chauhan were annexed with the affidavit. The entire record had been received in this Court but the Court was kept in dark. There was overwhelming evidence of other witnesses pointing towards the guilt of Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi such as PW 19, Sri Shiv Raj Singh, Sub-Divisional Magistrate who has deposed that in the meeting at the Collectorate Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi had admitted the fact that the deceased had been taken to P. S. Kotwali for interrogation. The omission to annex these statements appears to be deliberate because very recently the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Singh v. State of Haryana, 1993 ACC 486 has laid down that in case of custodial deaths once it is established that deceased were in police custody, it is for the accused to explain their disappearance. As mentioned earlier Sheel Bhadra. As mentioned earlier Sheel Bhadra. Dwivedi had absconded on the date of judgment and the learned Special Judge issued non-bailable warrant against him, but the warrant could not be executed. Perhaps the whereabouts of Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi were not known as he was concealing his presence. The conduct of the accused at the trial also go to show that there was misuse of bail. I have gone through the ordersheet and I find that on large number of dates one or other accused who are all police officers failed to appear in court and time and again non-bailable warrants were issued. These warrants always remained a dead letter and not executed and were subsequently withdrawn when the accused appeared in court at their sweet will. The trial was dragged on for a decade in this manner. It was only when the case came up before Sri Raj Vir Singh who adopted a firm attitude and did not even spare the prosecuting agency which was out to help the accused that the trial could conclude. Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi had made a mockery of the court and absconded on the date of judgment and had also earlier absented from court. Speaking for myself such a person who absconds after judgment and who makes a mockery of the court looses his right to remain on bail. The brazenness with which Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi took the court for ride is an eyeopener and if such persons are allowed to remain on bail then perhaps the public will loose confidence in the efficacy of the judicial process. 7. HOWEVER, since Sheel Bhadra Dwivedi has been granted bail by Mr. Justice Kundan Singh it would be for His Lordship to consider the desirability of vacating the bail order or cancel the same. 8. SO far as the bail application of appellant Premendra Singh is concerned my conscious revolts and does not permit me to enlarge him on bail at the moment. The bail application of Premendra Singh is accordingly rejected. Office shall place this order before Mr. Justice Kundan Singh at an early date.