Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2138 (ALL)

NARNARAIN PANDEY @ NANHEY v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-07-21

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT RAVINDRA SINGH, J.- This, application has been filed by the applicant Nar Narain Pandey alias Nanhey by the applicant Nar Narain Pandey alias Nanhey with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 69 of 2010 under section 302 I.P.C. P.S. Gopiganj district Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi). 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Satish Kumar Dubey on 6.3.2010 at 00.10 a.m. at P.S. Gopiganj in respect of the alleged incident occurred on 5.3.2010 at 7.45 p.m., distance of the police station was bout 5 km from the alleged place of occurrence, the applicant and the co-accused Bridhi Narain Pandey alias Jajjey Pandey are named in the F.I.R. as accused, one accused is unknown. It is alleged that the first informant along with his family members was residing in the commercial premises known as Tulsi Chitra Mandir, Gopiganj. On 5.3.2010 at about 6 p.m. the first informant along with his nephew Anil Kumar alias Guddu and Umesh Kumar Shukla were ready to go to Allahabad to attend a birth day party then the applicant and co-accused Bridhi Narian Pandey alias Jajjey came there on a bullet motorcycle who exchanged the hot talks with his nephew deceased Anil Kumar Dubey, they were demanding Gunda Tax/Rangdari, in the meantime, they got an opportunity to put the deceased Anil Kumar Dubey in his Maroti Zen Car No. U.P. 60-A 2442 by availing the same they proceeded towards Mirzapur Road, the above mentioned car was chased by the first informant Umesh Kumar Shukla and Balram Pandey by boarding themselves in Tata Sumo vehicle, the above mentioned Maruti Zen car was seen by them in front of the newly constructed house/workshop where it was parked. The first informant along with other persons reached there and saw inside the house that the applicant and one unknown person, were catching hold, the deceased, thereafter, the accused Bridhi Narian Pandey alias Jajjey Pandey caused gun shot injury on the temporal region of the deceased at about 7.45 p.m. consequently the deceased died instantaneously. 3. The accused persons after extending the threat and showing weapons escaped from the place of occurrence. After the death of the deceased, the licensed revolver of the deceased was found lying near the dead body probably the gun shot injury was caused by that revolver. 3. The accused persons after extending the threat and showing weapons escaped from the place of occurrence. After the death of the deceased, the licensed revolver of the deceased was found lying near the dead body probably the gun shot injury was caused by that revolver. According to the post-mortem examination report the deceased has sustained firearm wound of entry size 1 c.m. in diameter on the right parietal region, which was having blackening and charring, its exit wound was injury No.2, having the size of 1.5 c.m. in diameter on the left parietal region. The applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge Bhadohi Gyanpur, who rejected the same on 21.4.2010. 4. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of V.P. and Sri Viresh Mishra, senior Advocate, assisted by Sri B.R.J. Pandey, learned Counsel for the complainant. 5. “It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant: 1. That the prosecution story is false, concocted and highly improbable. 2. That the presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful, the manner in which the accused persons came to the premises of the first informant, and the deceased was taken in his Maniti Zen Car, is wholly unreliable. 3. That the dead body of the deceased was found in a workshop of the applicant and his car was parked in front of that house, the licensed revolver of the deceased was also laying near the dead body, belies the whole prosecution story because if the deceased was killed by his licensed revolver, and the accused persons were not having their own weapons, there was no need to take away the deceased in the car to the place of occurrence, if he was forcibly taken by the applicant and other co-accused persons, licensed revolver would have been used, by the deceased in his defence but there is no such story. 4. That the I.O. prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence on 6.3.2010 and prepared the recovery memo of one revolver; four live cartridges and one empty cartridge. 5. That according to the prosecution version also only one shot was discharged/ it may be discharged by the deceased himself for committing suicide. 6. 4. That the I.O. prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence on 6.3.2010 and prepared the recovery memo of one revolver; four live cartridges and one empty cartridge. 5. That according to the prosecution version also only one shot was discharged/ it may be discharged by the deceased himself for committing suicide. 6. That as per allegation levelled against the applicant, only role assigned to the applicant is of catching hold of the deceased, he did not cause any injury to the deceased/ the role of causing gun shot injury is assigned to the co-accused Bridhi Narian Pandey alias Jajjey, the role of catching hold in such a case is not probable. 7. That the deceased has committed suicide, about which information was sent to the police on 5.3.2010 at 20.05 hours by the applicant, which has been recorded in the G.D. No. 54 at 20.15 O'clock on 5.3.2010. 8. That the request report has been prepared on 5.3.2010 since 9.30 p.m. to 11 20 p.m., on the basis of the information given by the applicant. The first informant Satish Kumar Dubey. Satish Kumar Dubey and Umesh Kumar are the witnesses of the inquest report, but they did not make any allegation, the F.I.R. has been registered on 6.3.2010 at 0.10 a.m. whereas the proceedings of inquest report were completed by 11.20 p.m. on 5.3.2010, the F.I.R. is delayed and it has been lodged after great thought and consultation, the delay of four hours in lodging the F.I.R. has not been explained. 9. That it is alleged that the accused persons after committing the crime hurriedly left the place of occurrence whereas in the inquest report it is mentioned that the gate of workshop/house was closed, it shows that no body witnessed the incident that's why it has not been specifically alleged that by which weapon the injury was caused. 10. That the deceased was running his business in loss, he was indebted, the deceased had come to the applicant to take the loan of Rs. 1 lac for the business of his Cinema, on which the applicant shows his helplessness, then the deceased committed suicide by his licensed revolver. 11. That the place of occurrence which has been shown as newly constructed house is a Karkhana, nobody resides in that house. 12. 1 lac for the business of his Cinema, on which the applicant shows his helplessness, then the deceased committed suicide by his licensed revolver. 11. That the place of occurrence which has been shown as newly constructed house is a Karkhana, nobody resides in that house. 12. That the applicant is an innocent person he has not committed the alleged offence, prior the alleged incident the applicant was falsely implicated under sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and section 3(i)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act in case crime No. 2216-A of 2008 P.S. Gopiganj district Sant Kabir Nagar in which after investigation final report was submitted whereas in its cross case lodged by the applicant chargesheet was submitted. The applicant is a man of high status, there is no chance of his absconding or tampering with the evidence, he may be released on bail. 6. In reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant that it is a pre-planned murder, the deceased was taken by the applicant and other accused persons in his car, from which he was taken inside the Karkhana/house where he has been killed, active role of catching hold is assigned to the applicant, in such a case where in an organized manner the murder is committed, the role of catching hold does not have lesser importance. The role of catching hold is probable because the deceased has been killed by causing injury on the left parietal region of the head. So far as the preparation of the inquest report is concerned, it has been prepared on the basis of the telephonic message given by the applicant, it is definite case of the applicant that the deceased had come to the applicant to take a loan of Rs. So far as the preparation of the inquest report is concerned, it has been prepared on the basis of the telephonic message given by the applicant, it is definite case of the applicant that the deceased had come to the applicant to take a loan of Rs. 1 lac, on showing his helplessness by the applicant, the deceased has committed suicide, it means that the deceased has committed suicide in the presence of the applicant, the suicide was committed inside the Karkhana/house of the applicant, even then the applicant did not remain present at the place of occurrence, the inquest report has been prepared on the same day but neither the applicant nor his family member was present there, the inquest report shows that the deceased was sitting on chair and the revolver was lying on his right side, which shows that the deceased had not committed suicide by sitting on the chair, the injury was caused from a very close range by some other person and to save the skin from the criminal liability telephone message was given to the police station on 5.3.2010 at 8.05 p.m. there was no improbability in the prosecution story. The prosecution has come forward with the correct version, the prosecution story is fully corroborated by the postmortem examination report. Due to presence of the first informant, witness Umesh Kumar and Balram Pandey at the time of preparation of the inquest report it cannot be said that F.I.R. lodged subsequently, is concocted because according to the inquest report the cause of death was not due to suicide committed by the deceased, the Rai panchan shows that the deceased died due to head injury, the same opinion was of S.H.O. concerned also, the applicant is a most powerful and influential person, in case, he is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. 7. 7. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., the learned Counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case F.I.R. has been lodged by Satish Kumar Dubey, who claims himself to be an eye-witness, alleged occurrence has taken place in two parts; first part has taken place in the premises owned by the deceased from where he was , taken to the Karkhana of the applicant and second part has taken place in a newly constructed house/Karkhana or the applicant where the deceased has been shot dead, his dead body was also found there, according to the bail application the applicant was present at the time and place of occurrence, he gave telephonic message to the police station concerned, according to his version the deceased committed suicide, but the applicant fled away from his Karkhana, he was not present ,at the place of occurrence at the time of the preparation of the inquest report, the dead body was found on a chair, according to the postmortem examination report the deceased has sustained one firearm wound of entry on his right parietal region of head, it was having blackening and charring, active role of taking to the place of occurrence has been assigned, the deceased, he was done to death, inside the Karkhana of the applicant at that time he was catching hold the deceased and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled to bail, the prayer for bail is refused. 8. Accordingly this application is rejected.