Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1696 (ALL)

VINOD KUMAR SHROTIYA v. STATE OF U P

2007-06-01

VINOD PRASAD

body2007
VINOD PRASAD, J. This transfer application has been filed by Vinod Kumar Shrotiya who is the informant of crime number 1317 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 394, 302, 307 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act P. S. Ranipur District Jhansi. In the concerned incident three persons were shot dead and two others had sustained injuries caused by the named accused persons. In this transfer application a counter-affidavit has been filed Sri Vinay Saran Advocate on behalf of accused Bhagat Singh, Ram Swaroop @ Chintu, Swami Prasad @ Pasha and Daya Ram @ Palley Dar, which is taken on record. 2. According to the prosecution case, an incident occurred on 17- 12-2006 at about 8. 30 p. m. near Pasha Bus Stand, Nai Basti, Ranipur, which is at a distance of one kilometre from the police station. The allegations levelled in the F. I. R. were that the informant Vinod Kumar Shrotiya was sitting on a transport company on 17-12-2006 at 8. 30 p. m. when his brother Manoj Shrotiya accompanied by Vimal Shrotiya, Moni Pal and Ram Babu Tiwari came driving his Indica Car No. U. P. 93j.-8153 from Jhansi. Manoj Shrotiya informed the informant that he was returning after leaving his wife Aradhana to Jhansi and was going to keep her pistol cloths and some ornaments at his residence. As soon as the brother of the informant Manoj Shrotiya reached near Pasha Hotel, a Scorpio and a Tata Safari cars and a Pulser Motorcycle came from the front rival direction. In those vehicles Lakhraj Yadav armed with a rifle, his son Jai Hind armed with the revolver of his mother, his another son Bhagat Singh armed with his rifle, Ram Swaroop and Mahendra both sons of Lakhan Yadav armed with a rifle and country made pistols respectively, Veer Singh son of Gajraj Yadav, armed with a rifle, Sanu son of Khargai Khushwaha armed with a coutnrymade pistol with 5-6 other persons armed with fire-arm weapons got down from those vehicles and surrounded the Indica Car of the brother of the informant and opened indiscriminate firing and subsequently escaped from the place of the incident. Informant and others after the shooting spree went near the car of Manoj and there they found that Manoj Shrotiya, Vimal Shrotiya and Moni Pal had lost their lives on the spot because of murderous assault. Informant and others after the shooting spree went near the car of Manoj and there they found that Manoj Shrotiya, Vimal Shrotiya and Moni Pal had lost their lives on the spot because of murderous assault. Two other persons Deep Chandra and Ram Babu Tiwari had sustained injuries in the said incident. Their medical examination reports are annexure No. 2. The aforesaid malefactors looted the licensed revolver of Aradhana and other articles. The incident was witnessed by informant Vinod Kumar Shrotiya who was present at a Transport Company alongwith Mahendra, Sridhar, Prateek Shrotiya, Komal Yadav and many other persons. Those persons also saw the incident in gas, torch and head lights of vehicles in question. The incident was motivated by political rivalry because the deceased Manoj Shrotiya was an active member of B. J. P. 3. After the incident informant Vinod Kumar Shrotiya scribed the F. I. R. (Annexure No. 1) and lodged it at police station vide crime No. 1317 of 2006 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 394, 302, 307 I. P. C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. The inquests (Annexure No. 3) on the dead-bodies of the deceased persons were conducted on 17-12-2006 and their post- mortem examinations (Annexure No. 4) were performed on 18-12- 2006. The post-mortem examination of the three deceased persons indicates that they all had sustained fire-arm injuries. On such facts four accused persons, Jai Hind, Mahendra, Veer Singh and Sanu, filed their bail applications in the Lower Court Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Jhansi after the same was rejected by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi and they were allowed bail by the Additional Sessions Judge (DAA), Jhansi on 26-4-2007 on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount. 4. It is not in dispute that against the said bail granting order dated 26-4-2007 a bail cancellation application has been filed in this Court being Bail Cancellation Application No. 9300 of 2007 which is still pending. 5. One another most important fact which requires to be mentioned here is that four of the accused in the said crime including prime accused Lekhraj Yadav, Bhagat Singh, Ram Swaroop, Kamkaj Yadav, Swami Prasad alias Pasha absconded and 82-83 proceedings were taken against them and a reward of Rs. 5. One another most important fact which requires to be mentioned here is that four of the accused in the said crime including prime accused Lekhraj Yadav, Bhagat Singh, Ram Swaroop, Kamkaj Yadav, Swami Prasad alias Pasha absconded and 82-83 proceedings were taken against them and a reward of Rs. 10,000/- for their arrest was announced by the IG, Police, Allahabad range and poster of Lekhraj Yadav was pasted declaring him to be a proclaimed offender. Later on accused Daya Ram @ Palley Dar, Ram Swaroop @ Chintu, Swami Prasad @ Pasha and Bhagat Singh son of Lekhraj Yadav Surrendered in the Court. 6. After the grant of bail to the four accused Jai Hind, Mahendra, Veer Singh and Sanu the other surrendered accused Daya Ram @ Palley Dar, Ram Swaroop @ Chintu, Swami Prasad @ Pasha and Bhagat Singh applied for being released on bail before Additional Sessions Judge (DAA), Jhansi. 7. As soon as informant applicant came to know of the said bail application he filed an application on 23- 5-2007 that he wants to move a transfer application as he has no hope of justice from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, (DAA) Jhansi. The said application of the informant applicant was allowed by imposing a cost of Rs. 100/- and Special Judge (D. A. A.) fixed 29-5-2007 for hearing of the bail application of the accused persons. Hence this transfer application seeking transfer of the case to any other District or Court within Jhansi itself from the Court of Special Judge (DAA) Jhansi. 8. In this transfer application it is mentioned the accused who were released on bail were released without verification of their surety bonds, ignoring the gravity of offence, and the fact that at that time five co-accused were absconding. It is also averred that Special Judge (DAA) has taken money for granting bail to the co-accused against which a Bail Cancellation Application has been filed in this Court being Bail Cancellation Application No. 9300 of 2007 in which notices has been issued by this Court. It is also averred that the presiding officer had developed good relations with the accused. It is also mentioned that during investigation of the crime some pressure was also exerted on the Investigating Officer to tampered with the investigation. It is further mentioned that accused Lekhraj Yadav has got great influenced in the Government of the ruling party. It is also averred that the presiding officer had developed good relations with the accused. It is also mentioned that during investigation of the crime some pressure was also exerted on the Investigating Officer to tampered with the investigation. It is further mentioned that accused Lekhraj Yadav has got great influenced in the Government of the ruling party. Alongwith this transfer application criminal history of the accused persons has been annexed as annexure No. 10. It is further mentioned that the aforesaid Lekhraj Yadav is a Block Pramukh of Block Bangra, District Jhansi. In paragraph 23 of this transfer application it is mentioned that the aforesaid accused tampered with the witnesses and also tried to win over the family members of the deceased. It is also averred that one of the eye-witness Kamal Yadav in connivance with the accused filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. mentioning a cross version in which the order for registration of the F. I. R. Was passed but subsequently after due investigation the final report has been submitted (The Investigation Officer of the case who is personally present in Court informed the Court that the said F. I. R. , which was registered under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. has already been expunged ). The bail granting order of the four accused persons has been annexed alongwith this transfer application as annexure No. 11. 9. I have perused the bail granting order as well as criminal history of the accused persons. A perusal of the criminal history indicates that so far as Lekhraj Yadav is concerned he has got a criminal history of the 33 cases. Ram Swaroop @ Chintu has a criminal history of six cases. Veer Singh Yadav, who has been allowed bail by Special Judge (DAA) Jhansi has also a criminal history of two cases under Section 307 I. P. C. alongwith the offence under Section 4/5 Explosive Act. Jai Hind Singh, who has also been granted bail by the Special Judge D. A. A. has got a criminal history of 8 cases besides the present case. Mahendra Singh has got a criminal history of one single case under Section 376 I. P. C. The bail granting order of the four accused indicate that the allegations levelled in the F. I. R. , post-mortem report, criminal history of accused persons etc. Mahendra Singh has got a criminal history of one single case under Section 376 I. P. C. The bail granting order of the four accused indicate that the allegations levelled in the F. I. R. , post-mortem report, criminal history of accused persons etc. has not at all been taken into consideration by the Special Judge (DAA) Jhansi while granting bail to the co-accused persons. Tampering of evidence has also to not been considered by him nor he has considered the fact that whether there was any chances of the accused to abscond. At that time five of the accused including the respondents here in this transfer application were absconding and they had not surrendered. This clearly indicates that out of 8 or 9 accused persons half of them did not surrender before the Court and were absconding. Special Judge (D. A. A.) Jhansi, therefore, in my view eschewed well settled and well established principles of allowing bail and therefore, I find that the there is much substance in this transfer application. 10. Since this transfer application has been filed showing the apprehension that the informant will not get justice at Courts at Jhansi that I consider it appropriate to stay all further proceedings of S. T. No. 21 of 2007 and S. T. No. 26/07, pending before Special Judge D. A. A. Jhansi including the disposal of the bail application filed by the respondents accused by the lower Court. I direct that this transfer application be clubbed with Bail Cancellation Application No. 9300 of 2007. 11. Since the two different types of proceedings are pending in this Court one is a Bail Cancellation Application and the other is this transfer application, that I consider it appropriate to direct the office of this Court to place both the applications alongwith the record before Honble The Chief Justice to nominate a Bench for disposal of both the matters and after seeking nomination from his Lordship both the applications will come up before the nominated bench in the first week of July for further orders or disposal. 12. Surendra Kumar Kulshrestha, S. I. , P. S. Kotwali, is personally present in Court today. He informed the Court that he is making all the endeavours to arrest the accused. He prays for sometime to arrest the accused and in the fitness of things he is allowed one month time for the said purpose. 12. Surendra Kumar Kulshrestha, S. I. , P. S. Kotwali, is personally present in Court today. He informed the Court that he is making all the endeavours to arrest the accused. He prays for sometime to arrest the accused and in the fitness of things he is allowed one month time for the said purpose. Order accordingly. .