Dismissed

Deep Chand Patel @ Deepu v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2021CRLA/4883/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a bail application challenging the refusal to release the appellant in a murder case under the SC/ST Act. The court held that the cumulative evidence, including confession, recovery of a firearm, and call records, prima facie established the appellant's guilt, making bail inappropriate.

What did the court decide?

Bail application of the appellant was rejected; appeal stands rejected.

Deep Chand Patel @ Deepu Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4883 of 2019 Appellant :- Deep Chand Patel @ Deepu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Shashi Ranjan Srivastava,Mrityunjay Dwivedi,Mukesh Kumar,Neeraj Kumar Pandey,Prakash Chandra Srivastava,Ram Bahadur,Virendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Singh Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶3

Heard Sri P.C.Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Sri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶4

This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the bail rejection order dated 21.08.2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Allahabad in Bail Application No.3732 of 2018 (Deep Chand Patel @ Deepu Vs. State of U.P) in Case Crime no.901 of 2018, under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Dhoomanganj, District-Allahabad and the appellant is facing incarceration since 05.07.2018.

¶5

Pleadings exchanged between the parties and the matter is ripe for final submissions.

¶6

At the outset Sri P.C.Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant while drawing the attention of the Court to the FIR lodged by Sri Ram Singh Pasi on 30.60.2018 at 02:18 hours for the incident said to have been taken place on 29.06.2018 at about 20:00 hours under the aforesaid sections of the IPC against appellant Deepu Patel and Lulu Pasi with the allegation that on 29.06.2018 around seven in the evening, and thereafter the appellant was repeatedly trying to contact informant's son Vivek Kumar @ Rinku. Around 07.25 p.m. Lulu Pasi accompanied his younger son. When the informant heard the sound of fire and thereafter he came to know that his son was shot dead. He has seen the incident about 500 meters far that his son was lying in a pool of blood and the appellant and Lulu Pasi, both were running away from the site with their respective firearms. It is mention in the FIR that named accused persons with the deceased were working as a 'Halwai' but his son left the company of the appellant, keeping in view that the appellant's past antecedents.

¶7

On this prosecution story, it was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was falsely implicated in the present case, the informant is not an eye witness to the incident and he saw that two persons were fleeing away from the site and from this, he has wildly inferred that the appellant is the assailant of the incident.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the post mortem report of the deceased, which carries a firearm wound of entry of 6cm x 4cm brain cavity on the right side of tempo-parietal area over the right ear, blackening was present all around the wound and the

¶9

margins were inverted. During the autopsy a one yellow colour metallic bullet were also recovered by the doctor from the left skull bone and immediate cause of death is hemorrhagic shock.

¶10

Thereafter during investigation, the police has recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of one Ram Singh Pasi, the informant, in which he has described his family members and also inform that it is the appellant, who take the contract of catering in the marriage ceremonies along with his son Vivek Kumar and Lulu Pasi. On 29.06.2018 that when his son was at his residence, the appellant was repeatedly calling him on telephone and when his son started ignoring the telephone calls and switched it off, the appellant send the Lulu Pasi to call the informant's son. Both of them went to the informant's place and soon after their departure he heard the sound of firearm. After hearing the gun shot fire, the informant rushed to the site, where he saw that both the named accused persons were running from the place of occurence carrying their respective firearms. There is specific averment that both of them have given a fatal shot to his son. It was further mentioned in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement that while fleeing away from the site Lulu Pasi was extending threats not to come near to them. On this, it was the major plank of submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is the specific averment in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement that both these accused persons were said to have been author of this unfortunate incident. But fact remains that there is single gun shot injury over the head of the deceased and as such cannot be said with certainty that it is the appellant who has committed the offence in question.

¶11

Sri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant tooth and nail by referring few more aspects of the issue i.e. the call details, the recovery and the confession statement of the accused himself. It was further pointed out that the bail application of co-accused was denied by the co-ordiante Bench of the Court having Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 7511 of 2019 on 22.02.2019. I twas submitted that the call detail report that the appellant Deep Chand Patel from his mobile number 8317059209, it is clear that he has called the deceased Vivek Kumar on 29.06.2018 at 16:40 hours thereafter, on the same day at around 19:00 hrs and they were talked about 136 seconds. Besides this, the confession of Deep Chand Patel the appellant before the police he has made the confession that he himself is a contractor and the deceased has taken a loan of Rs. 12,000/- from him and despite of the repeated demands he was not returning the amount and as such it is stated that he has purchased the mobile phone. Despite of the repeated request and demand, when he has denied then he called the deceased through Lulu Pasi and asked his money and when he denied to oblige him then out of sheer fit of anger, he has given a fatal firearm on the head of the deceased. In addition to this, there is recovery of firearm from the possession of the appellant. The case diary report no.3 dated 05.07.2018 there is reference of arrest of appellant and from his possession there is recovery of 315 bore countrymade pistol and one live cartridge was recovered.

¶12

After hearing the rival submission and perusing the story narrated in the FIR, 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant, call detail report and the confession made by the appellant before the police, coupled with the fact that there is recovery of firearm from the possession of the applicant, it is established that the deceased was a helping hand and working with the appellant from last four years and there was some dispute regarding the certain sum lended by him as alleged, the relationship become sore between them on the fateful day, it was the appellant who has repeatedly given a call asking the deceased to meet him, and when he started ignoring and avoiding his call,then he himself has send Lulu Pasi to call him and committed the offence, this fact is established by the firearm of 315 bore countrymade pistol and the measurement of injury sustained by the deceased, clearly indicates that the injuries corroborates the bore of the firearm. In addition to this, in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement the informant clearly indicates that it is appellant who was carrying a firearm in his hand and fleeing away from the site by extending the threat that no one should come near them else they would face the same result.

¶13

I have perused the bail rejection order of the appellant that the trial has already been commenced and the testimony of PW-1 has been recorded. On this it has been argued that in order to falsely implicate the appellant the I.O. of the case has purposely highlighted the appellant in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant. I am afraid to accept this contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. No argument can be appreciated in isolation, it has to been seen and weighed in its totality and in reference to context. Wholistic approach is desirable to assess the feasibility of the argument. Admittedly as confessed by the accused appellant that he has lend the money to the deceased, the deceased was started ignoring and avoiding his telephone calls, then he has send his accomplice Lulu Pasi to accompany him and committed offence and thereafter there is a recovery of weapon in question from the possession of the appellant. All these factors, if taken in a cumulative and linear way, prima facie establishes the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the present offence and hence deserves no sympathy from the Court. More over the appellant has got a criminal antecedent of four other cases, (though it has been argued that the appellant has bailed out in all those four cases). But fact remains that he was allegedly involved in those cases. It is not desirable to let loose the appellant on bail.

¶14

The trial is progressing with the case and one witness has already been examined, it is expected from the learned trial court decide the present session trial on the priority basis. Since the accused appellant is in jail, his bail application is rejected at this stage.

¶15

The reasoning adopted by the learned court below while passing the impugned order dated 21.08.2018 does not suffer any vice of law or application of judicial mind and thus need not require to be dislodged. The appeal stands rejected.

¶16

Order Date :- 5.10.2021/Abhishek Sri.

Deep Chand Patel @ Deepu v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deep Chand Patel @ Deepu v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shanti Lal Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Kulshreshtha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumer Kaushik and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajan Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ankit Nain and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another