In a bail application under Section 302 IPC, the High Court rejected the prayer after finding no good reason to release the applicant, who was implicated in a murder case involving three accused persons.
The bail application rejected and the trial court directed to conclude the trial within six months.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2942 of 2018
Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad @ Hansi Croniya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ms Pratibha Singh,Mr Ashok Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Fazal Kareem Jafri
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mohd. Shoaib Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Fazal Kareem Zafari, learned counsel for the informant/complainant as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Rajendra Prasad @ Hansi Croniya with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 385 of 2017, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police StationPuramufti, District-Kaushambi, during the pendency of the trial.
As per the first information report lodged by Ram Gopal Patel i.e. the father of the deceased, namely, Vijay Singh Patel @ Daroga alleging therein that the deceased was 25 years old. 5-6 days before, he came to his house after working in Mumbai. As usual, he after taking food on 16th September, 2017 at 08:30 p.m. (evening) went to his second house for sleeping but he did not return till morning. On 17th September, 2017 at 07:00 a.m. (morning) one Kallan told the informant that a boy has died in the garden whose neck was cut and blood was flowing. On that information, he went to the garden and saw that his dead body was of his son, Vijay Singh @ Daroga, who had been killed by unknown persons after cutting his neck. Dead body was kept in the garden for which he has informed the Police for necessary action.
In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant has stated that the deceased and Hansi Patel @ Rajendra Kumar @ Koniya (applicant) and Jitendra, who were resident of village of the informant, used to to sewing work in Mumbai, where the deceased took a rented room and used to live therein. After sometime, both the aforesaid persons started living along with the deceased, but the aforesaid two persons did not pay rent and neither did they give money for food and other things of daily use, to which a quarrel took place between the deceased and the aforesaid two persons in which they beat the deceased due to which he sustained injuries on his body. Thereafter they left the said rented room of the deceased. When the deceased came to his village, he narrated the entire
incident to the informant. The deceased again went to Mumbai and both the aforesaid persons wanted to stay along with the deceased but he had refused due to which they abused and threatened to kill him. After eight months, aforesaid two persons came to their village from Mumbai. One week before, the deceased also came to the village as he was suffering from ailment. The deceased and aforesaid two persons used to drink alcohol at Mumbai. After returning home of the deceased, they were again friendly and used to drink alcohol. On 16th September, 2017, the aforesaid two persons took the deceased to the guava garden of one Hori Lal, where all three drank alcohol. They gave the deceased more alcohol, whereas they drank less alcohol. Since the deceased drank more alcohol, he became more intoxicated, then the aforesaid two persons killed him by cutting his throat by the axe and fled. On the second day of the incident, when everyone came to know that Jitendra escaped with his wife since morning and when the Police was enquiring about the said incident, Hansi Patel @ Rajendra Patel also ran away from the village. Therefore, the informant had believed that both the aforesaid persons had killed the deceased due to earlier enmity between them.
In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Motaka @ Vinod Kumar i.e. independent/public witness has stated that on 16th September, 2017 in the evening, on the side of the road near the Goddess Kaali Temple in Solar's light, he saw the deceased along with the aforesaid two persons going from road to east.
It has been argued by the applicant that the applicant is innocent and due to suspicion only, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is not named in the first information report. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no eye witness from which it is established that the applicant is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. The motive brought forward by the prosecution in order to falsely implicate the present applicant is by any stretch of imagination not believable and the motive has been concocted, created and manipulated, so as to falsely implicate the present applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 22nd September, 2017.
Per contra learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant/complainant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities
and will misuse the liberty of bail. On the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no eye witness or public witness, learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the informant have submitted that there is a eye witness/public witness, namely, Motaka @ Vinod Kumar, who in his statement has stated that on the date of the incident he saw the deceased along with the aforesaid two accused persons including the applicant going from road to east. On the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no motive, learned counsel for the informant has stated that there is strong motive for both the accused persons, as they were inimical to the deceased, when the deceased had refused to keep them in his rented room at Mumbai for which there was quarrel between them and they also threatened to kill the deceased. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. has further contended that since the trial of the case is at an advance stage and on date three prosecution witnesses of facts, namely, P.W.1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 have been examined, interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to the court below to conclude the trial itself instead of deciding the present bail application of the applicant on merit.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application stands rejected.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440 , if there is no legal impediment. If possible, the trial court shall proceed with the matter on day to day basis.
Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Order Date :- 22.7.2019
Sushil/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving murder under Section 302 IPC at an advanced stage of trial.
Whether the interest of justice warrants concluding the trial within a fixed period.
Whether affidavits and witness statements establish enmity and motive for the alleged killing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India & AnotherReferred¶16
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajendra Prasad
State Of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
