Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2706 (ALL)

Praveen @ Prince Raghav v. State of U. P.

2016-08-04

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. 265 of 2014, u/s302, 328 I.P.C., Police Station-Chhatari, District-Bulandshahar. 2. Shri Dheeraj Singh Bohra, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of complainant today, which is taken on record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. 4. Perused the record. 5. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the F.I.R.of the case was lodged on the basis of an application moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. The incident is said to have taken place on 16.8.2014 and the application was moved on 25.8.2014 and the prosecution case as has emerged out is that the applicant and co-accused had taken the deceased to some place where they made him drink Alcohol and also administered poison to him. Subsequently the deceased was again brought by accused persons back to his house where he was left in a pitiable condition and died soon thereafter. Initially the cause of death could not be ascertained but subsequently the viscera report indicated that the deceased died as a result and effect of some poison. The contention of the counsel is that all this story of taking away the deceased by the accused persons and then compelling him to drink or administering some poison is just an after thought and has been developed through consultation and deliberations and this story does not contain any truth in the same. In this regard the counsel has laid emphasis upon the fact that the information first in point of time was given on 16.8.2014 i.e. on the day of incident itself by none else than the father of the deceased himself and it was on this information that the police had arrived and performed the inquest report of the deceased. The information that was furnished by the father was to the effect that his son (the deceased) had for some reason committed suicide in his house. The information that was furnished by the father was to the effect that his son (the deceased) had for some reason committed suicide in his house. Counsel has also drawn the attention of the court to the assertion made in the F.I.R. that was subsequently lodged in which the brother of the deceased namely Tota Ram has been made a witness of the fact that he had seen the applicant and co-accused making the deceased drink alcohol and when he asked his brother to go back he was not allowed to go back by accused. Even this was alleged in the subsequent version of F.I.R. that when Tota Ram, the brother of the deceased, insisted further then the applicant and co-accused gave threat him that he should run away otherwise he would also be killed. Counsel has further drawn the attention of the court to the statement of aforesaid Tota Ram in which the aforesaid allegation of compelling the deceased to drink alcohol has been given up and to the contrary, it was stated by the aforesaid Tota Ram that when he and his parents were in a field they got the information that his brother Sannu has committed suicide by hanging. It was further stated that after this an information on number 100 was given on which the police had arrived. Submission is that it is wholly unthinkable that if there had been any truth in the claim of the prosecution that the deceased was seen being administered the alcohol by force and then he was carried to his house and was dumped there in a nearly dead condition then there was absolutely no question for the father of the deceased to furnish the information that his son had committed suicide. In this regard it has also been pointed out by the applicant's counsel that the real sister of deceased namely Sheetal was also examined by the police and she also is said to have stated that she was in her house when the accused-applicant had brought the deceased on the motorcycle and had left him there in unconscious state and later on deceased Sannu died. The contention is that it is also clear that the aforesaid sister Sheetal was very much present in the house and therefore it cannot be said that information of commission of suicide was or could have been any wild conjuncture of the father. The contention is that it is also clear that the aforesaid sister Sheetal was very much present in the house and therefore it cannot be said that information of commission of suicide was or could have been any wild conjuncture of the father. Submission is that actual story is some what very different from what is now being projected by the prosecution. Counsel has also drawn the attention of the court to the observation made by the police officer who performed the inquest in which he had noted that the garment of the deceased indicated the presence of semen. Counsel has tried to submit that it is very difficult to tell under what circumstance the deceased died. In addition it has also been submitted that if the applicant had actually administered the poison to the deceased and in case he actually committed the murder of the deceased then there was no justification as to why the accused should then take the trouble to take the dead body or the nearly dead deceased on motorcycle and bring him to his house again. The normal guilty conduct of any accused would be to make his escape good after commission of crime and not to expose him to the full public view and be seen by the all and sundry carrying the victim with them. Submission is that the story of taking the deceased on the motorcycle and bringing him back to the house of deceased after administering him poison is highly incredible story which hardly constitute any legitimate basis to prove applicant's complicity in the crime. 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 18.4.2016 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant who have opposed the prayer for bail. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.4.2016 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant who have opposed the prayer for bail. Attention of the court was drawn to the post mortem report and it has been pointed out that the features noted by the doctor indicate that the deceased while being carried on the motorcycle was not in a position to control himself and his legs were dragging all the way on the ground which resulted in corresponding injuries on his feet. Counsel has tried to show that when the deceased was brought back to his house he was virtually dead as a result of the poison that was administered to him by the accused. But despite being pointedly asked to explain the earlier version of the suicide given by the father, neither the informant's counsel nor learned A.G.A. has been able to proffer any explanation for the same which may be accepted as a tenable explanation with regard to the loud inconsistency in between the two versions. 7. 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. 8. Let the applicant-Praveen @ Prince Raghav, involved in Case Crime No.265 of 2014, u/s 302,328 I.P.C., P.S.-Chhatari, District-Bulandshahar 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. 9. (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. 9. 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. 10. 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.