Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 851 (ALL)

OM VEER v. STATE OF U P

2009-03-20

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2009
RAVINDRA SINGH, J. This appli cant has been filed by the applicant Om Veer with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 245 of 2005 under sections 365, 302 and 34 IPC P. S, Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr. 2. This is second bail application filed by the applicant. The Criminal Misc. First Bail Application No. 4702 of 2006 has been rejected by this Court on 25. 5. 2006 after considering the merits of the case. 3. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. , Sri V. K. Singh and Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant. 4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution version the FIR has been lodged on 26. 6. 2005 at 3. 05 P. M. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 26. 6. 2005 at about 6. 30 A. M. in which the applicant and other co-accused Ved Prakash son of Bailey and Manoj are named in the FIR alleging therein that wife of the first informant Bhanu Pratap Singh has been kidnapped by them prior the al leged incident also. The wife of the first informant was kidnapped, its case was also pending. During investigation the first In formant stated that one Maruti Van was parking near the temple of Bhuteshwar in which the applicant and other co-accused persons were sitting, as soon as the wife of the first informant reached there, she was dragged by them inside the Maruti Van and taken away to the deceased from the alleged place of occurrence, at that time the deceased was caught hold by the applicant. The deceased was kidnapped by applicant and others prior the alleged incident also, its FIR was lodged in case crime No. 984 of 2000 under sections 365 and 376 IPC, this case is pending in the Court. The other witnesses also made the same allegation against the applicant. But Km. Rachna daughter of the first informant did not dis close the name of any accused. Subse quently the dead body of the deceased has been seen in a canal near Nagia Kat. The statement of the Ram Pal Singh has again been recorded on 7. 7. The other witnesses also made the same allegation against the applicant. But Km. Rachna daughter of the first informant did not dis close the name of any accused. Subse quently the dead body of the deceased has been seen in a canal near Nagia Kat. The statement of the Ram Pal Singh has again been recorded on 7. 7. 2005 in which he stated that he was not known to accused persons prior the alleged incident. The case of the applicant is on the same footing with the case of other co-accused persons. The co-accused Ved Prakash has been released on bail by the another bench of this Court on 10. 9. 2007 and other co-accused Manoj and Mahesh @ Sarpanch has also been re leased on bail, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. 5. From the perusal of the record it appears that after considering the order dated 10. 9. 2007 passed by another bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Applica tion No. 14593 of 2007 granting bail to the co- accused Ved Prakash this Court issued a notice to co-accused Ved Prakash to ex plain as to why his bail granted vide order dated on 10. 9. 2007 may not be cancelled. It is replied by the co-accused Ved Prakash by way of filing his affidavit mentioning therein that the witness Ram Pal Singh had named three co- accused persons including Ved Prakash but he did not disclose the name of fourth accused, but his second statement was recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. On 4. 10. 2005 in which he did not disclose the name of any accused and Km. Rachna also had not disclosed the name of Ved Prakash and other co- accused, consid ering the statement of Km. Rachna and Ram Pal Singh, the another Bench of this Court has observed that Km. Rachna, daughter of the deceased and one Ram Pal Singh who are the eye- witness of the al leged abduction of the victim woman but in their statement they have not named the accused applicant. Whereas the witness Ram Pal Singh had disclosed the name of Ved Prakash and other co-accused in his first statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. and Km. Rachna is a child eye witness, it was not expected from her to disclose the name of any accused. Whereas the witness Ram Pal Singh had disclosed the name of Ved Prakash and other co-accused in his first statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. and Km. Rachna is a child eye witness, it was not expected from her to disclose the name of any accused. The an other Bench of this Court has also consid ered the statement of the deceased re corded in earlier case under section 164 Cr. P. C. In which she had denied her ab duction. Next consideration of granting bail was silence of three days for not lodg ing the FIR. The record shows that in the present case the copies of the statement of some other witnesses were also annexed. In the statement of first informant it has been specifically mentioned that the abduction of the deceased was witnessed by Km. Shashi and Ram Pal Singh. The record of the bail application of Ved Prakash shows that statement of Km. Shashi recorded by the I. O. under section 161 Cr. P. C. was also filed. The first statement of Ram Pal Singh recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. has also been filed, the co-accused Ved Prakash has filed his bail application without conceal ing any material fact. There is no fault on the part of the co-accused Ved Prakash, therefore the explanation given by the Ved Prakash for not cancelling his bail is ac cepted. 6. But considering the gravity of the offence and other evidence available against the applicant, I do not agree to re lease the applicant on bail to the applicant on the ground of parity with co-accused Ved Prakash. The FIR itself shows that applicant is main architect of this incident because emphasis has been given upon the name of the applicant. In the present case the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on 25. 5. 2006, thereafter, the co-accused Ved Prakash has been re leased on bail on 10. 9. 2007. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of co-accused Ved Prakash who has been re leased on bail on 10. 9. 2007. It is also not proper to grant the bail to the applicant on the basis of the order dated 10. 9. 2007. There is no good ground for releasing the applicant on bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application rejected. .