Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Suresh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3279 of 2022
Decided On : 29-04-2022
Constitution of India - Article 21 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201, 147, 148, 149, 323, 120-B, 216 - Criminal Procedure code, 1973 - Section 439 - Seeking Bail - Offence of Murder - Accused-applicant is owner of Somu Dhaba - Allegations against accused-applicant and other co-accused are that when the deceased along with his friends went to have meal at Somu Dhaba, some altercation took place and accused-applicant and other co-accused badly assaulted the deceased and threw his dead body at some distance to give the incident as an accident - It is alleged that CCTV footage of Somu Dhaba and the area recorded were deleted - Violation of the fundamental rights of the accused-applicant guaranteed under Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Findings of the Court:
Evidence available on record, does not consider that accused-applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage - Accused-applicant is owner of Somu Dhaba, where in a fracas, deceased was beaten and when anyhow he could escape from there on his motorcycle and thereafter he came again, he was allegedly chased by accused-applicant and other co-accused in two four wheeler vehicles and thereafter he was hit by one of the vehicle and then allegedly he was assaulted and killed in a most gruesome manner, which is evident from post-mortem report - It is fit case where the accused-applicant should be enlarged on bail - Accused-applicant, who allegedly along with the other co-accused has committed heinous offence, cannot complain of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India when he himself is not cooperating in early conclusion of the trial.
Result: Bail Application rejected.
JUDGMENT :
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No. 366 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201, 147, 148, 149, 323, 120-B, 216 IPC, Police Station Harchandpur, District Raebareli.
2. Accused-applicant is the owner of Somu Dhaba at Raebareli. Allegations against the accused-applicant and other co-accused are that on 9.10.2019 when the deceased along with his friends went to have meal at Somu Dhaba, some altercation took place and the accused-applicant and other co-accused badly assaulted the deceased and threw his dead body at some distance to give the incident as an accident. It is alleged that CCTV footage of the Somu Dhaba and the area recorded between 10 PM to 1 AM were deleted.
3. Sri Anupam Mehrotra, learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that even after lapse of more than two years since 10.10.2019, charges have not been framed and the trial has not commenced. He has further submitted that there is no likelihood of the trial commencing in near future. Accused-applicant can not be kept under trial for an indefinite period. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the following judgements of the Supreme Court:
2. Mehmood Mohammed Sayeed vs. State Of Maharashtra, (2002) 10 SCC 677
3. State, CBI/SPE, New Delhi vs. Pal Singh and Another, (2001) 1 SCC 247
4. Sunil K. Sinha vs. State of Bihar, (1998) 5 SCC 607
4. On merit, learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that the FIR was registered on the compliant given by the father of the deceased, Pradeep Kumar Singh and as per GD entry of the Police Station, Harchandpur, when the said FIR was lodged, Pradeep Kumar Singh was accompanied by Raj Kumar Singh, Vasudev Singh and Suresh Singh. He has also annexed photocopy of the GD entry in this respect.
5. The inquest proceedings were conducted between 1.30 PM to 3.15 PM. Raj Kumar Singh, one of the inquest witnesses, was also present when the FIR was lodged. In the inquest report, the inquest witnesses stated that the deceased died because of the injuries sustained by him in the fracas at Somu Dhaba and made no mention that the deceased was assaulted or that the deceased died or Garhi Khas, Raebareli, which is about 15 Kms. away from Somu Dhaba. On 10.10.2019 itself, the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted and the following ante-mortem injuries were noted on the body of the deceased:
2. Lacerated wound of 01 cm x 01 cm on left side of head 06 cm above from mid of left eye brow x bone deep.
3. Lacerated wound of 01 cm x 01 cm c bone deep on top of head 06 cm back from injury no. (2).
4. Abrasion of 11 cm x 04 cm on right side of face 03 cm medial from Rt. Ear Tragus.
5. Abrasion of 30 cm x 05 cm on back of Rt. Hand and fore arm upto elbow.
6. Abrasion of 12 cm x 05 cm on rt. Side of neck 04 cm below from Rt. Ear pinna.
7. Abrasion of 11 cm x 07 cm on medial aspect of left elbow joint extending to arm and forearm.
8. Contused swelling of 10 cm x 05 cm on medial aspect of left ankle (mall column).
9. Multiple contusion in area of 30 cm x 15 cm over back of chest raining from 12 cm x 02 cm to 07 cm x 02 cm.
10. Abrasion of 06 cm x 0.5 cm on Rt. Sdie chest 06 cm below from Rt. Nipple.”
6. Cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries.
7. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that the FIR is not true account of the incident inasmuch as there is no mention in the inquest report that the deceased was assaulted or that the deceased died at Garhi Khas, Raebareli, whereas in the FIR it was stated that the deceased was killed and his dead body was thrown at the godown near Garhi Khas.
8. First statement of Raj Kumar Singh, PW-12 was recorded on 23.10.2019, who was also the inquest witness and was present at the time when the FIR was lodged. In the statem
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
