Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2581 (ALL)

Kailash Gupta v. State of U. P.

2016-07-26

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2016
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.10 of 2015, u/s 302/120B I.P.C., Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District-Mathura. 2. Heard Shri Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant assisted by Shri Ankit Agarwal, and Shri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is a government employee and was posted as Bandi Rakshak in District Jail, Mathura at relevant point of time. Further submission is that the applicant is in government service since 2006 and has never been subjected to any departmental or criminal proceedings and has performed his duties regularly with utmost sincerity. It has been further submitted that the implication of applicant is the result of collusion of higher authorities of Jail Department with the informant in order to save the higher authorities and other employees of the Jail. It has been contended by counsel that one wrangle took place on 17.01.2015 within the premise of District Jail, Mathura between the two set of prisoners, in which firearm was used and few prisoners had received serious injuries resulting into death of one prisoner. It has been also submitted that the said incident, which occurred within the premise of District Jail Mathura, was an outcome of administrative lapses of jail authorities and the applicant had no concern at all with the said incident. The next submission is that a false recovery was planted on the applicant to strengthen the case of informant by showing recovery of Rs.20,000/- and a bottle of oil on the pointing out of accused-applicant. Further submission is that in fact the said amount of Rs.20,000/- belonged to the applicant and said amount was given by the applicant to his bhanja namely Ved Prakash Gupta for his personal work on 21.10.2014 by withdrawing the same from A.T.M. and said money was returned back by his bhanja by withdrawing it from his account through cheque. Submission is also that the mobile number assigned to the applicant during the course of investigation is not allotted in the name of applicant and in fact there is no evidence against the applicant in the entire case diary and the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.01.2015 and hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 4. Submission is also that the mobile number assigned to the applicant during the course of investigation is not allotted in the name of applicant and in fact there is no evidence against the applicant in the entire case diary and the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.01.2015 and hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the offence in question is shockingly serious and has been committed in a daredevil manner within the premise of District Jail, Mathura by the accused persons with the conspiring aid of applicant and the act of accused-applicant contributed a willful substantive aid to the commission of the ghastly crime perpetrated by co-accused persons causing murder of one prisoner and also causing serious injuries to others within the premise of District Jail, Mathura. Further submission is that a serious animosity was going on between two groups of criminals, one headed by Rajesh Sharma @ Tonta and another group headed by Deepak Verma, due to which a wrangle took place on 17.01.2015 within the premise of District Jail, Mathura at about 3.30 O'clock in Hata No.2 of Barrack No.3456 in between Deepak Verma, Deepak Meena and Akshay Solanki on one side and Rajesh Sharma @ Tonta, Raj Kumar Sharma on other side and in the said fierce wrangle firing was also resorted to. But in this incident unexpectedly in the initial fight the group of Deepak Verma got worse hit and above named Akshay Solanki @ Pintu died on spot and the pistol used in the commission of crime was left over the body of deceased Akshay Solanki @ Pintu. Another revolver used in the commission of crime was thrown outside the barrack by co-accused Laurence. In the said incident, the prisoners Deepak Meena, Rajesh Sharma @ Tonta and Raj Kumar Sharma had also received injuries. The F.I.R. for the said incident was lodged by the Superintendent, Jail, Mathura on 17.1.2015 at about 17.25 P.M. at Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District-Mathura and the district administration as well as higher authorities of Prison Department were immediately informed about the incident. The F.I.R. for the said incident was lodged by the Superintendent, Jail, Mathura on 17.1.2015 at about 17.25 P.M. at Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District-Mathura and the district administration as well as higher authorities of Prison Department were immediately informed about the incident. During the course of investigation it was revealed that the accused-applicant who was posted as Bandi Rakshak in District Jail, Mathura, had supplied revolver, pistol, cartridges and an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- in the jail premise to the prisoners Deepak Verma, Deepak Meena and Akshay Solanki @ Pintu. Further submission is that the daredevil act of accused persons and their audacious criminality did not stop with the death of Akshay Solanki and there is evidence that when the injured prisoner Rajesh Sharma @ Tonta was being carried from District Hospital, Mathura to District Agra for specialized treatment under the reference of concerned Medical officer, he was murdered by one Gopal Yadav, Rakesh Chaudhary, Naeem, Raj Kumar and others by taking over the ambulance near Farah Toll Tax. During investigation, it was further revealed that co-accused Gopal Yadav and Rakesh Chaudary were in continuous touch with the accused-applicant Kailash Gupta, and as the accused-applicant was posted as Bandi Rakshak, he was assigned the job to supply firearms and the money in jail premise to Deepak Verma group, which job was successfully done by the accused-applicant. The next submission is that one Lavesh Sharma, who is an Advocate and was having acquaintance with co-accused Gopal Yadav and was pursuing his cases as his counsel, has stated in his statement recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. that he was accompanying Gopal Yadav on 14.01.2015 at about 7.00 P.M., when co-accused Gopal Yadav handed over yellow polythene containing some material and bunches of currency notes to applicant. Witness Lavesh Sharma had further stated that as he was not having any concern with this dealing, he did not ask anything from co-accused Gopal Yadav. He further stated that Gopal Yadav being his client had several times borrowed his mobile phone to talk with the present accused-applicant Kailash Gupta as well as co-accused Rakesh Chaudhary, however, he did not know about the details of conversations having been busy in his court works. He further stated that Gopal Yadav being his client had several times borrowed his mobile phone to talk with the present accused-applicant Kailash Gupta as well as co-accused Rakesh Chaudhary, however, he did not know about the details of conversations having been busy in his court works. Further submission of learned A.G.A. is that during the course of investigation the applicant made crucially relevant admissions as to how the co-accused Gopal Yadav had given him the pistol, revolver, cartridges and huge amount of money (Rs.90,000) to be handed over to co-accused Deepak Verma, Deepak Meena and Akshay Solanki which he did while he kept Rs.20,000/- in his room. The aforesaid amount of Rs.20,000/-, a bottle of oil and a polythene bag were recovered on the pointing out of present accused-applicant Kailash Gupta from the tin box of his own room. It has been further submitted that during the course of investigation, the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of various mobile numbers, which were being used by co-accused Gopal Yadav, Rakesh Chaudhary, the present accused-applicant Kailash Gupta and witness Lavesh Sharma, were obtained by the Investigating Officer and those CDRs clearly disclosed continuous phone calls made in between them on the date of incident i.e. 17.01.2015 as well as prior to the incident and after the incident. The mobile number which was being used by the accused-applicant Kailash Gupta, was obtained by him in the name of another person namely Narendra Singh son of Shri Badam Singh and likewise the co-accused Gopal Yadav and Rakesh Chaudhary also obtained the sim cards of mobile numbers used by them in the name of another person namely Vinod Kumar son of Shri Pradeep whereas the sim card being used by witness Lavesh Sharma was on his own name. Contention is that there is no reason for the false implication of accused-applicant and the exhaustive investigation conducted by the local police reveals substantive material against the accused-applicant, who despite being a government servant posted as Bandi Rakshak in District Jail Mathura, joined hands with hard core criminals and covertly facilitated the perpetration of this highly orchestrated crime committed on 17.01.2015 within the premise of District Jail, Mathura and outside. Contention therefore is that the involvement of accused-applicant in such a serious and heinous offence dis-entitles him from the relief of granting bail and hence, his bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. Contention therefore is that the involvement of accused-applicant in such a serious and heinous offence dis-entitles him from the relief of granting bail and hence, his bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. Perused the record along with the case diary produced by learned A.G.A. in the light of submissions placed by the rival sides. 6. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected. 7. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.