(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.) 1. This Application Is Filed
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
3 All] Rajendra alias Rajjo V. State of U.P. 955 APPELLATE JURISDICTION impression that the deceased himself CRIMINAL SIDE committed the suicide. The alleged DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2006 occurrence was witnesses by the sisters of the deceased. The statements of the BEFORE Km. Laxmi and Sonu have been recorded THE HON’BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J. by the I.O. They have fully supported the prosecution story. The applicant has Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3356 of confessed before the police and at his pointing out the rope used in the 2006 commission of the alleged offence was recovered. The deceased was poor Rajendra alias Rajjo ...Applicant (In Jail) person belonged to a scheduled cast. He Versus was aged about 16 years. He has not State of U.P. ...Opposite Party taken any loan from the applicant. He was bruetly murdered only because he Counsel for the Applicant: has refused to cut the varseem of the Sri K.K. Dwivedi applicant. The prosecution story is fully Sri S.P.S. Raghav corroborated by medical evidence. The deceased has received anti mortem Counsel for the Opposite Party: injuries and the cause of death was strangulation. In such circumstances the Sri M.L. Jain applicant may not be released on bail. A.G.A. (Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.) Code of Criminal Procedure-439-Bail Application-offence under section 302 read with SC/ST Act-Section 3 (ii) (V)- 1. This application is filed by the deceased a poor S.C. boy age 16 years- applicant Rajendra alias Rajjo with a murder by way of strangulation-dead prayer that he may be released on bail in body hanged to give colour of suicide- case crime no. 8 of 2006, under Section the occurrence witnessed by the sister of 302 I.P.C. and Sections 3(ii)(v) of the deceased Km. Laxmi and Sonu their S.C./S.T.(P.A. Act, P.S. Dauki, District statement recorded by I.O. supported Agra. the prosecution story-bluntly murdered only because the deceased refused to cut the varseen-prosecution story fully 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is corroborated by medical evidence-held- that in the present case the F.I.R. has been not to be released on bail. lodged by Mahesh Chandra at P.S. Dauki, district Agra on 7.1.2006 at 9.10 p.m. in Held: Para 5 respect of the incident which had occurred It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and on 7.1.2006 at about 7.045 p.m. The the learned counsel for the complainant distance of the police station was about 1 by submitting that the applicant is main km from the place of occurrence. The accused. He has committed the murder F.I.R. was lodged only against the of the deceased. The manner in which applicant. It is alleged that the deceased the deceased was murdered shows a Anil was asked by the applicant to cut the high handedness of the applicant because all the sisters of the deceased varseem of his field, but the deceased were confined in a room. Thereafter, the refused, therefore, he was beaten by the murder was committed by way of applicant by kicks and fists prior the strangulation and dead body of the alleged occurrence. Thereafter, on deceased was hanged to give a 956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006 7.1.2006 at about 7.45 p.m. the applicant basis of the doubt and suspicion. The entered into the house of the first applicant is old man aged bout 60 years. informant. The sisters of the first He has never been challaned in any informant were confined in a room and criminal case. The deceased had closed from outside and they were committed suicide. The recovery of the extended threat for not making hue and plastic rope has been shown from the field cry. Thereafter, the applicant strangulated of the applicant whereas the same rope the neck of the deceased by rope who was was used in hanging the deceased in a sleeping in front of the room where his room. During investigation the statements sisters were confined. After committing of Laxmi and Sonu were not recorded by his murder he was hanged in a hook. The the I.O. The deceased had taken a sum of alleged occurrence was witnessed by the Rs.10,000/- as loan from the applicant and sisters of the first informant namely there was an agreement with the deceased Laxmi and Sonu from the window and that he will work as a labour at the house side of the door. At the said time the first of the applicant and labour charges would informant and his brother Munna also be deposited to final payment. The came there, but the applicant by pushing applicant demanded the money but the them ran away from the place of same was not given and the applicant was occurrence. The dead body of the beaten by the deceased. Due to this reason deceased in hanging condition was found the applicant has been falsely implicated. inside the room by the first informant and other. The dead body was taken down and 5. It is opposed by the learned the room of the sisters was open. They A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the also came out from the room and narrated complainant by submitting that the the whole story. The first informant went applicant is main accused. He has to the police station along with the dead committed the murder of the deceased. body of the deceased and lodged the The manner in which the deceased was F.I.R. murdered shows a high handedness of the applicant because all the sisters of the 3. Heard Sri S.P.S. Raghav and Sri deceased were confined in a room. K.K. Dwivedi learned counsel for the Thereafter, the murder was committed by applicant , learned A.G.A. for the state of way of strangulation and dead body of the U.P. and Sri M.L. Jain learned counsel for deceased was hanged to give a impression the complainant that the deceased himself committed the suicide. The alleged occurrence was 4. It is contended by the learned witnesses by the sisters of the deceased. counsel for the applicant that there was no The statements of the Km. Laxmi and motive for the applicant to commit the Sonu have been recorded by the I.O. They alleged offence. The first informant is not have fully supported the prosecution eye witness. Even the sisters of the first story. The applicant has confessed before informant namely Laxmi and Sonu had the police and at his pointing out the rope not seen the alleged occurrence because used in the commission of the alleged as per the prosecution version they were offence was recovered. The deceased was also kept in a closed room. The applicant poor person belonged to a scheduled cast. has been falsely implicated only on the He was aged about 16 years. He has not 3 All] Ram Kumar Gautam V. State of U.P. and others 957 taken any loan from the applicant. He was Magistrate to Register and for bruetly murdered only because he has investigation-interference by the refused to cut the varseem of the revisional court on the ground of previous enmity between the parties- applicant. The prosecution story is fully held-illegal and not tenable in the eye of corroborated by medical evidence. The law-session judge mis interpreted the deceased has received anti mortem law laid down by this court in Gulab injuries and the cause of death was Chand Upadhyay case reported in 2002 strangulation. In such circumstances the (44) ACC-670-court should examine the applicant may not be released on bail. genuineness of each complaint on its own wisdom. 6. Considering the facts and Held: Para 4 and 5 circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel The approach on the fact is quite for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and erroneous. If there is previous enmity without expressing any opinion on the between the parties that does not mean that any offence, committed thereafter, merits of the case the applicant is not should go un-noticed. There is fracture in entitled for bail, therefore, the prayer for the hand of one injured and it makes out bail is refused. a cognizable offence. Whenever said application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 7. According this bail application is discloses a cognizable offence, the rejected. Magistrate is bound to direct for registration of the case. The law laid --------- down in Gulab Chandra case (supra) has ORIGINAL JURISDICTION been wrongly interpreted. It gives a CRIMINAL SIDE guide line to the Magistrate. Suppose, in DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.05.2006 a murder case, where all the accused are known and murder takes place in broad BEFORE day light and on inaction of police, if the THE HON’BLE K.N. SINHA, J. complainant approaches the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., whether Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.4689 of his prayer can be thrown away, taking 2006 resort to Gulab Chandra case (supra) that offence was committed in broad day Ram Kumar Gautam ...Petitioner light and accused are known, hence case Versus could not be registered. State of U.P. and others ...Respondents This is absolutely misinterpretation of the judgment of this Court by the Counsel for the Petitioner: revisional court and the law laid down Sri A.M.