Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3589 (ALL)

Ram Siya Pal v. State of U. P.

2009-11-25

Y.K.SANGAL

body2009
JUDGMENT: Y.K.Sangal, J. This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant Ram Siya Pal, involved in case crime no.312 of 2008, under Section.364 IPC,.P.S. Shajahanpur, District. Jhansi. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A and perused the record. As per prosecution case in the night of 10/11/-5-2008 brother of the informant was dis-appeared .A report regarding his missing was lodged on 11.5.2008 at about 4.30 P.M. Later on, on 30.5.2008, one unknown person met with the informant and made a demand of Rs. 9,00000/ ( Nine lac) as ransom to release his brother. He informed the police, accordingly the case was converted under section 364 IPC. Investigation started, raid was arranged by the police, independent witnesses were taken and raid was made and abductee Pramod Kumar Mishra was found in the grip of the applicant and others. After using required force and firing shots in the air, five persons including applicant were apprehended on the spot and four persons succeeded in escaping from there. Abductee was released from their grip and after collecting the evidence and after completing the investigation, accused persons were challaned to face trial under section 364 IPC. 2. Applicant claims his false implication due to enmity and itwas argued that no independent witness of the recovery and of police encounter is there , no demand of rupees nine lacs was made, story set up is concocted and he has no criminal history. P.W. -2 Pramod Kumar Mishra abductee has not named him in his statement on oath before the court and co-accused Kadoria Dhimar was also released on bail under the order of this court dated 21.1.2009. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant and no recovery was made from his possession. A supplementary affidavit was also filed by one Dev Dayal annexing a copy of the statement of Pramod Kumar Mishra , said to have been recorded in Session Trial No. 348 of 2008 State Vs. Lakhan in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi . 3. Learned A.G.A argued that the certified copy of the statement not filed and it is not clear from the supplementary affidavit that the person who filed this affidavit, said to be the Pairopkar , how he is related with the accused . Lakhan in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi . 3. Learned A.G.A argued that the certified copy of the statement not filed and it is not clear from the supplementary affidavit that the person who filed this affidavit, said to be the Pairopkar , how he is related with the accused . No parcha pairvi of the case was also filed to support the fact that he is the pairopkar of the case. 4. It is a case of abduction to fulfil the e demand of Rs. 9,00000/ (Nine lacs) to get released the abductee from the grips of the accused persons. As per prosecution case the applicant was arrested on the spot when a raid was arranged and made by the police party and abductee was got released from their possession who was kept there as the date and time was fixed with the brother of the abductee and he was expected to come there with money. Copy of the statement of the abductee before the police was also filed on behalf of the accused , where he has supported the prosecution case and also named the applicant among those who abducted him. As per prosecution case recovery memo was prepared on the spot where the abductee has also named the applicant and stated that he was amongst those persons who had abducted him and he was also having watch on him and was brought at the place of recovery by the applicant also to realise money of ransom. Copy of the statement in court in trial filed on behalf of the applicant (not certified) copy shows that the applicant was not named by the abductee and it was simply said that some persons were apprehended on the some and some succeeded in escaping from there and he does not know the names of those persons who were apprehended on the spot. Learned counsel for applicant also argued that the applicant was also not identified by the abductee at the time of his statement among those who were apprehended on the spot. 5. Learned A.G.A has drawn my attention to this fact that no evidence is on record to show that on the date of his statement on oath, the applicant was present in the court. 5. Learned A.G.A has drawn my attention to this fact that no evidence is on record to show that on the date of his statement on oath, the applicant was present in the court. It was further argued by the learned A.G.A that under the pressure and threat of the accused persons, this witness has not named the applicant in his statement on oath. There are two other public witnesses Brij Bihari and Hari Om to support the prosecution case and as per prosecution case, they were also present at the time of recovery. It was further argued by learned A,.G.A that if accused applicant is released on bail, again he will be free to put undue pressure and threat to them and possibility cannot be ruled that these two public witnesses may not support the prosecution case under threat and pressure of the applicant. It was further argued by the learned A.G.A that the recovery memo shows that abductee has named him. In the statement on oath in court whole story of the prosecution is corroborated by him except the fact that he has not named the applicant in his statement, although arrest of the applicant and other co accused is clear from the evidence available on record. Release of co accused was only on account that he was not arrested on the spot an abductee was not recovered from his possession. 6. Offence in which applicant is involved is of serious nature. It is hardly requires to be stated that once a person released on bail in serious criminal cases , where the punishment is quite deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same, indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witness, threatening the family members of the victim and also create problem of law and order situation and seriousness of the offence always matters in releasing the accused on bail. In the circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is accordingly rejected.