This judgment rejects a bail application in a case involving murder and armed attack near Central Jail Naini. The court held that despite inconsistencies in the prosecution narrative, the severity of injuries and premeditation made the applicant an unfit candidate for bail.
Bail application rejected. Relief of interim bail denied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3808 of 2018
Applicant :- Raju Pahalwan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shyamal Kumar Prayagi,Brijesh Sahai,Jai Prakash Singh,Umesh Prasad Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramesh Kumar Saxena,Dashrath Lal Yadav
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Shri Brijesh Sahai learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ramesh Kumar Saxena, Shri Dashrath Lal Yadav learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated along with 9 named and 3 - 4 unnamed persons for the incident in question in which Jyanchand brother of first informant and Lalta Prasad died and Shatrughan, Anil, Srikant, Jaiprakash and Satish sustained multiple injuries; that prosecution story is absolutely false, concocted and incorrect; that the first informant was not eye witness of the incident but has falsely claimed himself to be an eye witness; that as per averments made in F.I.R. there was a dispute between first informant and accused persons on account of which the accused persons had attempted on the life of mother of first informant, of which F.I.R. was lodged against coaccused Shailendra Kumar Yadav and others; that it is contended in F.I.R. that on 5.6.2016 first informant along with Jyanchand, Lalta and others had gone to Central Jail, Naini to meet his father Chandra Bhan by 2 vehicles and when they reached at the main gate of Jail, certain persons met the first informant and he started talking them while his brother Jyanchand and others gone inside Jail to meet his father whereafter at about 3.40 p.m. on return when the vehicles were stopped at turn of Central Jail Naini to pick the first informant, previously hidden accused persons started indiscriminate firing and bombing on the vehicles and the motorcyclists and persons in while Scorpio fired indiscriminately with rifles, pistols, revolvers etc. in their
hands, with an intention to cause death of deceased and others and also hurled hand-grenades because of which one Safari vehicle of first informant dis-balanced and fell in a pit and Lalta Prasad Yadav died due to firearm injuries while Jyanchand, Anil, Jaiprakash, Satish, Srikant and Tribhuvan sustained multiple firearm injuries and during treatment Jyanchand, the brother of first informant also died; that collective role of firing has been assigned to around 15 persons and prosecution has failed to specify as to which weapon was being carried by which of the accused and which firearm injury of which injured or deceased was caused by which of the accused; that the statements of injured witnesses does not repose confidence and shows that some of the accused persons fired at one vehicle while other accused persons fired at another vehicle; that the confessional statement of applicant in police custody is not admissible in evidence; that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of applicant; that the applicant has explained his criminal history of 12 cases in rejoinder affidavit along with copies of acquittal order/bail orders; that the applicant was not at all involved in the incident in question and his case is distinguishable from other co-accused persons.
Per contra, learned A.G.A,. and learned counsel for first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that the incident in question is a broad-day-light incident multiple firearm injuries to as many as 5 persons of which prompt F.I.R. has been lodged against 10 named and 3- 4 unnamed persons; that in this broad-day-light incident apart from indiscriminate firing on account of previous enmity, the accused persons also thrown handgrenades at the spot; that deceased Jyanchand sustained 17 firearm injuries including 10 entry wounds while deceased Lalta Prasad sustained 4 firearm injuries including 2 entry wounds, showing brutality on the part of accused persons and applicant; that the incident in question has taken place at the turn of Central Jail, Naini when applicant and associates were returning after meeting with Chandrabhan Singh in prison; that the incident in question has been committed in pre-planned manner at a very conspicuous place near Central Jail,
Naini; that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant who has actively participated in the incident; that the accused persons armed with deadly weapons formed an unlawful assembly and the incident in question was committed by them in prosecution of common object of unlawful assemble to cause death of several persons wherein death of 2 persons was caused with grievous injuries to 5 persons and each of the member of unlawful assembly is liable for the offence; that non recovery of weapon of crime does not indicate non participation of applicant in a incident in question; that in the incident where 14 - 15 persons indiscriminately fires causing death of two persons and injuries to 5 persons, prosecution may not be required to specifically narrate as to which bullet fired by which accused hit which of the injured or deceased; that due to incident committed by accused chaos arose at the spot; that the applicant has long criminal record and if released on bail he will misuse liberty of bail.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The bail application of applicant Raju Pahalwan in Case Crime No.429 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C. & Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Naini, District Allahabad is rejected accordingly. Order Date :- 6.12.2018
VS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is a fit case for bail given the severity of injury, pre-planned nature of the attack, and his criminal record.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Raju Pahalwan
State Of U.P.
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
