Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2034 (ALL)

Sangam Nishad alias Sahani v. State of U. P.

2011-08-30

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2011
Hon. Ravindra Singh, J.:- Heard Sri S.S. Tripathi and Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant. This bail application has been moved by the applicant Sangam Nishad with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 1174 of 2010 under sections 147, 148, 149, 364-A, 302, 201, 120-B, 404, 506 IPC, P.S. Mehdawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar. The facts in brief of this case are that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Gayasuddin against unknown miscreants on 15.12.2010 at 4.30 P.M. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred after 1.00 P.M. on 8.12.2010 and thereafter. It is alleged that one Irshad Ahmad, the brother of the first informant who was carrying on a shop had gone from his house on 8.12.2010 at about 1.00 P.M. by saying that he was going to Sahjanwa, thereafter he did not return then his search was made but no whereabouts could be known. The first informant was having the apprehension about his killing. The deceased has gone on his motorcycle No. U.P. 58 D-2524. During investigation six other co-accused were apprehended by the police on 8.2.2011, they made the confessional statement. According to their statements the deceased was kidnapped by them and the others, the demand of ransom was made but the amount of ransom was not paid by the his father then he was killed, his body was cut into the pieces by using Daav and Bhujali then it was packed in three plastic containers. Bhujali, Daav, Shoes, Shirt and cap were kept in a bucket. The body which was cut into the pieces was thrown into Rapti River and at the pointing out of the co-accused persons the cap, shirt, Shoes, Daav and Bhujali were recovered from the house of co-accused Rana Singh and the Bajaj Platina motorcycle was recovered from the possession of co-accused Ripunjay Singh @ Rana Singh which was also belonging to the deceased. These recovered articles have been identified by the brother of the deceased. These recovered articles have been identified by the brother of the deceased. The other co-accused who were apprehended by the police disclosed the name of the applicant and Sangam Nishad @ Sahani, thereafter at the pointing out of the co-accused Sangam Nishad the mobile phone of the deceased used in demanding the ransom was also recovered and he was taken on the police custody remand. The applicant applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir nagar who rejected the same on 4.6.2011. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR, he has not been put up for identification, his name has been disclosed by the co-accused Ripunjay Singh, Ashutosh Singh @ Ashu, Shalok Kanaujia, Ranvijay Singh, Rajan Yadav and Kranti Kumar who were allegedly apprehended by the police on 8.2.2011 have made the confessional statements. From the possession of the co-accused Ripunjay Singh @ Rana Singh the Bajaj Platina motorcycle belonging to the deceased was recovered. At the pointing out of the co-accused Ripunjay Singh, the cap, shirt, shoes of the deceased, containers and bucket, Daav and Bhujali were recovered which were identified by the brother of the deceased. But the name of the applicant and co-accused Julum Chaudhary were disclosed by them. The applicant surrendered before the court concerned on 19.2.2011, thereafter he was taken on the police custody remand. The recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased was planted by the I.O. by alleging that it was recovered by the applicant from the back of the house of co-accused Rana Singh by digging the earth. The recovery of the mobile of the deceased at the pointing out of the applicant is not supported by any independent witness. The allegation that the recovered mobile was used in demanding the ransom in which the voice of the deceased was also recorded who were demanding the money is absolutely false and baseless. The co-accused Kranti Kumar and Rajan Yadav have been released on bail by the another bench of this court on 18.5.2011 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12806 of 2011 and on 30.5.2011 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 14075 of 2011. The above mentioned co-accused were apprehended by the police have made the confessional statement on 8.2.2011. The applicant is in jail since 19.2.2011, he may be released on bail. Bail Application No. 12806 of 2011 and on 30.5.2011 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 14075 of 2011. The above mentioned co-accused were apprehended by the police have made the confessional statement on 8.2.2011. The applicant is in jail since 19.2.2011, he may be released on bail. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that applicant belongs to a gang who is involved in a case of kidnapping/abduction and murder, he is a hired criminal, he is involved in some other criminal cases also. It is a case in which in a pre planned manner the deceased has been abducted, demand of ransom has been made, on non fulfilment of demand of ransom the deceased has been killed. His dead body has been cut into the pieces, thereafter dead body was thrown into the river. The clothes of the deceased and weapons used have been recovered from the house of co-accused Rana Singh.The motorcycle of the deceased was also recovered from the possession of co-accused Ripunjay Singh @ Rana Singh. The applicant has surrendered in the court on 19.2.2011 he was taken into the police custody remand on 15.3.2011, he was medically examined, the condition was that his lawyer may also accompany him during the period of police custody remand, at the pointing out of the applicant the mobile phone of the deceased has been recovered from the back of the house of the co-accused Ripunjay Singh @ Rana Singh. The recovered mobile has been taken by the applicant by digging the earth, it was kept in a plastic bag. The applicant has used the mobile in demanding the ransom. The accused persons have compelled the deceased to demand the money on his mobile. The applicant operated the mobile, the voice of the deceased was also recorded, it was recorded three times. The voice of the deceased was identified by the first informant Gayasuddin. The applicant has used that mobile in demanding the ransom in the voice of the deceased and the applicant is involved in some other criminal cases. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of co-accused Kranti Kumar and Rajan Yadav because from their possession or at their pointing out no article of the deceased was recovered. In case the applicant is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of co-accused Kranti Kumar and Rajan Yadav because from their possession or at their pointing out no article of the deceased was recovered. In case the applicant is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record it appears that it is a case in which the deceased was abducted for the purpose of ransom, but non fulfilment of demand of ransom the deceased was killed, thereafter his dead body was cut into the pieces and it was thrown into river and it was confessed before the police. At the pointing out of the applicant the mobile phone of the deceased has been recovered from the house of co-accused Ripunjay Singh, it was taken out after digging the earth. In the recovered mobile the voice of the deceased was recorded. The applicant has operated the mobile phone, it was used in demanding the ransom, the voice of the deceased has been identified by his brother. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of co-accused Rajan Yadav and co-accused Kranti Kumar and co-accused Julum Chaudhary because from their possession or at their pointing out no article of the deceased was recovered, the applicant is not entitled to get the benefit of the parity with the above mentioned co-accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected.