Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2654 (ALL)

Chandan Singh Alias Pappu Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-08-01

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2016
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J. This application has been moved seeking the release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No.48 of 2016, u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 506 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendments Act, Police Station-Sarnath, District-Varanasi. 2. Heard Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri R.P. Rajan, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Perused the record. 4. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the F.I.R. was lodged by Ashish Yadav, who is the son of the deceased and also an eye-witness of the occurrence as he claims that at the time of occurrence he was going along with his father in his Safari car and it was at that time that they were waylaid by certain accused persons, who started firing indiscriminately upon the father resulting in his death. Further submission is that the names of the assailants as were disclosed in the F.I.R. by the first informant were Rajesh Singh @ Rinku, Chandan Singh @ Pappu Singh, Arun Singh and Vinod Singh. It is further submitted that after receiving the fatal shots, the deceased was rushed to the hospital where he had been declared dead. The enmity with the aforesaid named assailants for reasons of election of Block Pramukh was alleged and it was also said that repeated threats were given by the aforesaid accused eventually resulting in his murder. The next submission is that the first informant was examined by the Investigating Officer u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. and in his statement given before the police he reiterated his version given in the F.I.R. But it had so happened that the incident in question got recorded in a CCTV camera which was fitted near the place of occurrence. It has been pointed out by counsel that the aforesaid CCTV footage was taken in possession by the Investigating Officer and was seen and shown to the family members which included the wife of the deceased Smt. Rajwati Devi. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of aforesaid Smt. Rajwati Devi, who is also mother of the first informant, in which she stated to have identified some other persons as accomplices different from the aforesaid nominated assailants. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of aforesaid Smt. Rajwati Devi, who is also mother of the first informant, in which she stated to have identified some other persons as accomplices different from the aforesaid nominated assailants. Subsequently when the first informant was again examined by the Investigating Officer, in this background he drastically changed his version given earlier in the F.I.R. and also given before the Investigating Officer at the first instance. According to this latter version, the role of applicant appears to have been ascribed is that of hatching a conspiracy while the names of all shooters involved in the actual act of shooting were completely changed and one Harendra Singh, Panna @ Rajan Chaudhary, Santosh @ Raju, Sonu Singh and Udal Bind were now ascribed the role of shooting at the deceased. In the second version given by the first informant, the co-accused Arun Singh who was also nominated in the F.I.R. as main shooter and one Manoj Singh were given the role of exhortation and it was stated by the first informant that at the time of occurrence the aforesaid co-accused Arun Singh and Manoj Singh had exchanged some expressions in between them saying that the heartfelt object and desire of co-accused Arun Singh and applicant Chandan Singh has got fulfilled. Submission is that it is this sentence uttered by co-accused Manoj Singh that has given the ground to the Investigating Officer to charge the applicant with the offence of hatching a conspiracy of this murder. Counsel has further tried to lay emphasis upon several contradictions existing in between earlier version of the first informant and the latter version to which he finally landed up and has tried to submit that the drastic change on the most fundamental aspects of the case goes a long way to detract the evidentiary value of the first informant and the nature of contradiction as mentioned herein before is so loud that it robs the prosecution from its credibility and worth. Contention is that in any view of the matter, in view of what has been stated by the first informant in his latter statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. the case of prosecution against the applicant is reduced to only of hatching a conspiracy and the role of shooting has been withdrawn which was earlier ascribed to him and this carves out a prima facie case for bail in his favour. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.02.2016 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 5. The Court has also heard learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. who have opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the CCTV footage that has been taken by the Investigating Officer was not taken in accordance with the rules and is not an admissible piece of evidence on the basis of which the version of the F.I.R. may be discredited and the earlier version given by the first informant in consonance with the version of F.I.R. should be made the basis to act upon against the applicant. 6. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 7. 7. Let the applicant-Chandan Singh @ Pappu Singh, involved in Case Crime No.48 of 2016, u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 506 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendments Act, P.S.-Sarnath, District-Varanasi be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions : - (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. 8. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 9. 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.