This Court granted bail to an applicant accused of murder and cheating involving his wife. The Court held that a prima facie case for bail was made despite circumstantial evidence. It directed a speedy trial within one year.
Bail granted. Order expeditious trial within one year under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
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.
1
Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17702 of 2019 Applicant :- Dr. D.P . Singh (Dharmendra Pratap Singh) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Tandon,Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajeev Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shishir Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P.S. Chauhan and Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State.
This bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.375 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 471, 120-B and 34 IPC read with Sections 366, 302 and 506, IPC, Police Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur.
The contention of the counsel for the applicant is to the effect that the Rajeshwari @ Rakhi (deceased) had lodged an FIR against the applicant for an offence of being sexually exploited. In this FIR subsequently after investigation a charge sheet was filed and the Magistrate has also taken cognizance, however, in the meantime the deceased who was the first informant in the said case and the applicant who was an accused in the said have solemnized marriage, as far back as in the year 2014 and were living together as husband and wife, apart from some dispute, which are as usual between the husband and the wife.
It has been further contended that in the present case an FIR was lodged on 04.07.2018, copy of which has been annexed on page no.22 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, with regard to an incident dated 24.06.2018. The first informant in the said case was Amar Prakash, which has been perused by the Court. In the said FIR it has been mentioned inter-alia that one Manish Sinha had rung on his mobile number informing the wife of the first informant Amar Prakash that ^^esjs
2
lEcU/k rqEgkjh uun jkts'ojh mQZ jk[kh ls gS vkSj eS mlls 'kknh djuk pkgrk gwaWA**
The further contention is that subsequently it appears that Rakhi @ Rajeshwari was murdered in Napel. Investigation was transferred to the Special Task Force and during investigation the name of the applicant cropped up and he was chargesheeted for the murder of the said Rakhi @ Rajeshwari, who is the wife of the present applicant.
It has been further contented by Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, by placing reliance upon the statement of Vijay Prakash, who happens to be the real brother of the first informant and thus a family member of the deceased, that the said Vijay Prakash is a setup witness, and he has given an evidence of last seen. His statement has been recorded on 10.03.2019, copy of which has been annexed on page no.109 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, wherein he has given a statement that he has seen the deceased in the company of the present applicant, at Nepal. However, it remains unexplained, as to how and under what circumstances, if he had seen the deceased in company of the present applicant on the date of the incident, then why he kept silent till 10.03.2019, when his statement was recorded, i.e. after nine months of the alleged incident.
We have also perused the statement of the Satyam, who is also an eye witness of last seen and which in effect is similar to that of Vijay Prakash.
Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, further submits that the only evidence admittedly on record is a recovery of a voter I.D. card of the deceased. In this regard reliance has been placed on page no.87 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. He further submits that their is an admitted position on record, as per documents on record and the statement of Manish Sinha on the record, itself, which shows that the deceased had solemnized marriage with Manish Sinha on 18.02.2018. In this regard reference has been made to the statement of Manish Sinha as well as the statements of other family members of Manish Sinha, the copies of the said statements has been annexed with the affidavit filed in
3
support of the bail application, the same has also been perused by the Court, the contents of which is self explicit.
Sri G. S. Chaturvedi has further contended that even though there is no dispute that the applicant was in Nepal on the given date, for that’s why itself, will not be sufficient for the conviction of the applicant, as there is no evidence which may show that the deceased has gone with the applicant in the scorpio vehicle from Gorakhpur to Nepal and in this regard the attention of the Court has been drawn to the statement of Gaurav, who happens to be the owner of the said scorpio vehicle, copy of the statement of Gaurav has been annexed on page no.101 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the same has been perused by the Court. It may further be added by the Court that this Court is not giving the details or going into the details of the statement as it might affect the trial itself, but the contents of the statement has been perused.
Since a counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel, on behalf of the complainant in the first bail application, being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10575 of 2019, which was already been dismissed as infructuous, today itself. Accordingly, with the consent of counsel for the parties the said counter affidavit is being read as a part of the record of the second bail application, being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17702 of 2019.
Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State have very strongly opposed the prayer of bail application with the contention that the deceased was a witness in a case which was lodged against the applicant and, therefore, the applicant had a motive of committing the murder. He has also placed reliance upon the statement of one Sabnam, copy of which been annexed on page no.104 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, however, the facts remains that the statement of Sabnam was recorded on 05.02.2019 and the statement of Vijay Prakash was recorded on 10.03.2019.
4
Sri R.P.S. Chauhan has placed much reliance upon the CDR details, however, he has factually admitted that the CDR details only shows that there was the deceased and the applicant were in touch telephonically. No actual call details have been produced before the Court, nor any conversation itself to have been tapped or recorded. Much has been said by Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, with regard to the motive in support of the contention that the applicant had a motive of committing the crime. Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, however, does not dispute the fact that apart from the recovery of the voter I.D. Card of the deceased, there is no other evidence, direct or indirect which may show the participation of the applicant in the commission of the actual alleged crime. It is also not been disputed by Sri R.P.S. Chauhan that the present case having of a purely circumstantial evidence. At this stage Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the complainant has referred to the criminal history of the applicant.
The Criminal History of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no.56 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, the same has been duly perused by the Court.
Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, in response to the said contention with record to the motive submits that, if the applicant had a motive, then the Manish Sinha, the person who has been named in the FIR, also had a motive to commit the crime and it cannot be said that it was only the applicant who has the motive to commit the crime.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.07.2015, with no previous criminal history, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Dr. D.P . Singh (Dharmendra Pratap Singh) involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like
5
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Order Date :- 15.5.2019 VKG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in proceedings for murder and cheating.
Whether to direct expeditious trial under Section 309 Cr.P.C. due to long period of detention.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶36
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaReferred¶36
Hussain and Another v. Union of India, 2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. D.P. Singh
State Of U.P.
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
