Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3146 (ALL)

CHARAN JEET SINGH @ NIKKA v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-09-16

VIJAY KUMAR VERMA

body2009
JUDGMENT VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.- 1. Prayer for bail in this application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Cr.P.C.) has been made on behalf of applicant Charanjeet Singh @ Nikka, s/o Avtar Singh, who is facing trial along with other accused persons in S.T. No. 649 of 2007, arising out of Case Crime No. 161 of 2007, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC, and section 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act, P.S. Gangoh, District Saharanpur. 2. An FIR was lodged on 8.5.2007 at 10.15 p.m. by Rakesh s/o Samay Singh, at P.S. Gangoh, District Saharan pur, where a case under sections 147, 148. 149. 307, 302 IPC and section 3 (2) (v), SC/ST Act was registered at Crime No. 161 of 2007 against CharanJeet Singh (applicant herein), Bindra, Meer Singh, Billa, Krishna Pal and Zahid. The allegations made in the FIR (annexure-I), in brief, are that on 8.5.2007 at about 8.30 p.m., when the complainant Rakesh, his father Samay Singh, brothers San deep, Raju and Sanjay as well as village people Pramod and Babu Ram etc. were having talks sitting in the shahan of the house of the complainant and gas lantern was illuminating, the accused Charan Jeet Singh @ Nikka and Meer Singh armed with country made pistols, accused Bindra and Billa having sword, Krishna Pal and Zahid and other two unknown persons having hockey came there and attacked by their respective weapons on the complainant and other persons sitting there, due to which Samay Singh succumbed to the injuries instantaneously on the spot and Sandeep, Raju, Sanjay, Pram ad and Babu Ram sustained injuries. On hearing the sound of fire and hue and cry, Jiledar, Chintu, Israr and Raj Kumar Saini along with other persons came there, who saw the incident and challenged the accused persons, on which they fled away firing in the air and giving threatening to kill. 3. I have heard arguments at length of Sri Satish Trivedi, learned senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey and Sri Raghuraj Kishore, Advocates, appearing for the applicant, Sri Birendra Singh Counsel for the complainant and AGA for the State. 4. 3. I have heard arguments at length of Sri Satish Trivedi, learned senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey and Sri Raghuraj Kishore, Advocates, appearing for the applicant, Sri Birendra Singh Counsel for the complainant and AGA for the State. 4. The first and foremost submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant was that in addition to the applicant Charan Jeet Singh, the accused Meer Singh also is alleged to be armed with country made pistol and they both are said to have fired, but ante mortem injuries No.1, which was found on the person of deceased at the time of post mortem examination, was only fatal and since it is not ascertainable as to whose shot had caused this fatal injury, hence the applicant deserves bail on this ground. 5. Next submission made by learned Counsel was that indiscriminate firing• is said to have been made by the applicant and co-accused Meer Singh, but no injury was caused to the complainant Rakesh which make his presence at the time of incident doubtful. 6. It was also submitted by learned Counsel that no injury caused by sword was found on the person of deceased, which also makes the case of prosecution doubtful, as marpeet by all the accused persons with their respective weapons is said to ' have been made, whereas the deceased did not sustain any injury by sword and hence due to this inconsistency in FIR version and medical evidence, the applicant should be released on bail. 7. Regarding the injuries of injured Raju, it was submitted by learned Counsel that all the injuries were sustained by him on the same side of body, which may be caused by one shot only and hence on this ground also, the applicant deserves bail, because fire arm injuries to the deceased as well as to the injured may be caused by one person only. 8. Drawing my attention towards the statement of witnesses Rakesh and Sandeep recorded in S.T. No. 649 of 2007 (annexures-l and 2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 18th May 2009), it was submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that place of incident has been changed in the statements of these witnesses. 9. It was further submitted by learned Counsel that no empty cartridges or pellets were recovered on the place of incident, which makes the incident at the alleged place doubtful. 10. 9. It was further submitted by learned Counsel that no empty cartridges or pellets were recovered on the place of incident, which makes the incident at the alleged place doubtful. 10. Next submission made by learned Counsel was that it was a night incident and nobody had recognized the assailants and seeing this weakness, gas lantern was purposely introduced in the FIR. 11. It was also submitted by learned Counsel that the applicant is languishing in jail for more than two years and hence, on the basis of long detention period in jail, he deserves bail now, as due to delay in trial, his fundamental rights of speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is being violated. 12. The bail application was vehemently opposed by the learned Counsel for the complainant and AGA contending that specific role of firing has been attributed to the applicant Charna Jeet Singh and co-accused Meer Singh and since the death of deceased Samay Singh was caused as a result of gun shot injury, hence, in this heinous crime, the applicant should not be released on bail. It was also submitted in this context by learned Counsel for the complainant that in addition to the deceased Samay Singh, Raju also had sustained fire arm injuries as is evident from his injury report (paper No. 10 to the counter affidavit of the complainant dated 30.10.2007). 13. Regarding the source of light, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the complainant that in FIR itself, it is mentioned that gas lantern was illuminating and there was sufficient light in the Shahan, and hence there was no difficulty in identifying the applicant, who was well known to the witnesses. 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire material on record. There is sufficient prima facie evidence to show that the applicant Charan Jeet Singh and co-accused Meer Singh were armed with country made pistols at the time of incident and they both had fired indiscriminately, due to which Samay Singh (father of the complainant) had succumbed to the firearm injuries and Raju also had sustained injuries caused by fire arms. There is sufficient prima facie evidence to show that the applicant Charan Jeet Singh and co-accused Meer Singh were armed with country made pistols at the time of incident and they both had fired indiscriminately, due to which Samay Singh (father of the complainant) had succumbed to the firearm injuries and Raju also had sustained injuries caused by fire arms. The post mortem report (annexure-3 to the bail application) shows that ante mortem injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 were caused by firearm, as a result of which, the deceased had died. Injured Raju had sustained three injuries which were caused by firearm, as is evident from which injury report (paper No. 10 to the counter affidavit). Therefore, having regard to all these facts and taking the evidence available against the applicant into consideration, but without expressing any opinion about merit of the case, in this heinous crime of taking away the life of an innocent person and causing injuries to injured Raju without any lawful excuse, the applicant does not deserves bail. 15. In my considered opinion, the applicant can not be admitted to bail on the basis of the period of detention in jail also. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and others, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per-se illegal. If the accused has committed• offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 16. Consequently, the bail application is hereby rejected. 17. The trial Court concerned is directed to conclude the trial of the applicants within a period of four months applying the provisions of section 309, Cr.P.C. and avoiding unnecessary adjournments. 18. SSP Saharanpur also is directed to depute special messenger to procure the attendance of rest wih1esses after obtaining their summons from the Court concerned and it must be ensured that ail the rest witnesses are produced for evidence in the Session Trial No. 649 of 2007 without causing any delay. 19. The Office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the trial Court concerned and SSP Saharanpur for necessary action. Application Rejected.