Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 599 (ALL)

BHOLA SINGH YADAV v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-03-13

RAHUL CHATURVEDI

body2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER Rahul Chaturvedi, J. On the earlier occasion a time was granted to the counsel for the complainant to file counter affidavit and Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the complainant today has filed counter affidavit which is taken on record and Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants states that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit in response to the counter affidavit. 2. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla,learned counsel for the applicants, Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 198 of 2017, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Jhunsi, District-Allahabad is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the belated FIR was registered on 03.03.2017 by Jai Narayan Singh while the incident said to have taken place on 01.03.2017. The FIR was registered against unknown persons with the allegation that the informant's son left his residential place around 9:00 p.m., informing his mother that he is going in a party but when he did not come back in the night and his dead body was found lying over the near by railway track on 02.03.2017. The inquest report was prepared at Jhunsi police station. A suspicion was raised by the informant, that his son was rather murdered and to give it a shape of accident, his dead body was thrown over the railway track by the alleged assailants. After registering the case Sri Surendra Nath S.H.O., P.S. Jhunsi has taken charge of investigation. The annexure no.3 is the postmortem report of the deceased Nitish Kumar Singh and the postmortem report shows that as many as 7 injuries found over his person. Most of the injuries are on his forehead and the cause of death is due to antemortem head injury. During investigation the I.O. of the case has recorded the statement of informant, on 20.09.2017 in which he has disclosed that after opening the personal box of the deceased, there are number of the documents were recovered including 12 love letters written by the deceased to his beloved Neelam Yadav and one handkerchief was also prepared by Neelam for him and certain photographs of his girl-friend. The informant has further reveal that his daughter Pooja disclosed that Neelam is the daughter of Chandrabali Yadav, who resides next door to him. The deceased and Neelam is initially acquainted each other and thereafter they are fall in love with each other. This fact was come to the knowledge of accused persons, who are brothers of Neelam Yadav, who extended to threats to the deceased and also to their sister. Number of other witnesses also supported the prosecution case and thereafter there was telephonic talk between each other by their respective mobile phones. 5. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that this was a case of pure and simple accident over the railway track in which the deceased has lost his life. 6. Per contra, learned AGA and Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application mentioning there in that due to partisan approach of the concern I.O. Surendra Nath, who was dancing on the tune of assailants for the reasons, the informant approached this court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15058 of 2017 with prayer to have impartial and transparent investigation into the matter. In response to the prayer of the applicants, this court on 01.08.2017 has directed to S.S.P., Allahabad to supervise the investigation and ensure that the same shall be completed speedily without undue delay. Consequently, on 05.08.2017 the investigation of the case was transferred to another S.H.O. Jitendra Nath Singh. 7. The learned counsel for the applicants has filed a counter affidavit annexing therein an application to S.S.P., Allahabad dated 20.04.2017 in which the informant has raised his strongest objection about the investigation and the way and the manner in which earlier I.O. of the case was conducting partisan and top sided investigation. The informant also quoted their instance of dated 16.04.2017 whereby the accused persons extended threats to his elder son of the informant, not to become hyper active while doing pairvi of the case. Besides this the statement of Neelam Yadav recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in which she has candidly reveals that the love letters send by the Nitish (deceased) to her was recovered from her possession by the accused applicants and the accused persons has also extended threats to Nitish as well as her. Besides this the statement of Neelam Yadav recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in which she has candidly reveals that the love letters send by the Nitish (deceased) to her was recovered from her possession by the accused applicants and the accused persons has also extended threats to Nitish as well as her. The statement of Doctor of Anshul Pratap Singh recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. who prepared the autopsy report, in his statement he clearly mentioned that the deceased has sustained blow from iron rod over his head. In his statement there is no indication that the deceased has met with a railway accident. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the case is of HONOUR KILLING whereby the accused persons infuriated by the relationship between the deceased and Neelam Yadav. On account of this relationship he has been murdered by the applicants. Without commending the merit of the case and keeping in view the 161 statement of Neelam Yadav and the injuries sustained by the deceased, I am of the opinion that the applicants appears to be prima facie involve in the murder of Nitish. Though the case is of circumstantial evidence but in the totality of the circumstances the materials which are recovered, it can be said that the applicants are involve in this brutal murder of the deceased Nitish and I am not inclined to excise my discretion under section 439 Cr.P.C., consequently, the present bail application stands rejected. 8. However, the trial court is directed to gear up the trial and try to conclude the same within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of the order before him by the applicants. It is expected that the learned trial court would make all necessary endeavor for early conclusion of the trial and the applicant would render necessary assistance and co-operation in the early conclusion of the trial. It is expected from the applicant to furnish the copy of this order before trial court within a week, so that strict compliance for the early conclusion of trial may be ensured. 9. Let a copy of this order may be also served by the office to the court concern within 15 days from the production of certified copy of this order.