Deshraj Rawat and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Heard Ms. Jyoti Rawat, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri V.K. Yadav, learned A.G.A. and Sri Anand Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶10

The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in FIR/Case Crime No.140 of 2022, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Rudauli, District Ayodhya.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to enmity, the applicants have falsely been implicated in the present case as in the year 2008 on account of some land dispute, father of the complainant got killed in the altercation took place between the parties. She further submits that there was no eye witness of the incident. It is alleged that applicants used to threaten the father of the complainant for compromise in the murder case of his father, in which the applicants were convicted for ten years rigourous imprisonment. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that merely on the basis of the statements of the fact witnesses, the applicants cannot be roped in the commission of crime as they have only said that applicants and other co-accused were going towards the place of incident, but they have not said that the deceased was also seen with them. The applicants have

¶12

been in jail since 24.04.2022 and more than two years have elapsed, therefore, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated 15.07.2022 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3486 of 2022, Pankaj Kumar Sahu Vs. State of U.P. and others.

¶13

Learned AGA and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that strong motive has been assigned to the applicants and co-accused and the First Information Report itself indicates that in the murder of the father of the deceased, the applicants and other co-accused have been convicted for ten years and appeal is pending before this Court. It is submitted that the prosecution case as set up in the First Information Report is fully corroborating with the statements of the fact witnesses, namely, Sanjay Lodhi, Chingu and Ram Gopal Lodhi, who have said that the applicants and other co-accused were seen going towards the place of occurrence and the deceased was done to death at the same locality and place. It is further submitted that strong motive and enmity cannot be ruled from the evidence on record as the applicants have been convicted for ten years in the murder of the father of the deceased and after enlarging on bail, the applicants used to threaten the deceased for compromise in the aforesaid case. It is also submitted that bail application of the brother of the applicants and co-accused has been rejected by this Court vide a detailed order dated 17.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10319 of 2022 after considering the entire facts and circumstances and the evidence on record; therefore, the applicants are not entitled for bail.

¶14

For consideration of the bail of the applicants, it would be apt to reiterate the order dated 17.10.2023

¶15

passed in the case of co-accused, Ishwar Lal Rawat in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10319 of 2022:-

¶16

"1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicant is taken on record.

¶17

Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, Shri Akash Deep Singh, learned counsel for complainant as well as Shri Bipul Kumar Singh, Brief Holder for the State and perused the record.

¶18

This bail application has been filed seeking release of the accused/applicant Ishwar Lal Rawat on bail, who is involved in Case Crime No. 140 of 2022 under Sections 302 I.P.C, Police Station Kotwali Rudauli, District Ayodhya.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the complainant is not the eye witness of the said incident. The First Information Report was lodged on 16.04.2022, thereafter, the statement of independent witnesses namely Sanjay Lodhi, Chingu and Ram Gopal Lodhi have been recorded on 18.04.2022. He has submitted that in the statements of fact witnesses, it has been mentioned that in the night, the applicant and other co-accused were going towards the place of incident, but according to the argument of counsel for applicant, the deceased was not seen with the co-accused, therefore, the last seen evidence is not sustainable. He further submitted that though, the motive has been assigned to the applicant to the extent that the applicant and other co-accused were convicted in the murder of father of deceased with a conviction of 10 years, but the same is not sufficient to implicate the applicant in the present case because there is no direct and clinching evidence available against the applicant. He further stated that the applicant has been assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased and he has no other previous criminal history and he has been languishing in jail since 24.04.2022.

¶20

On the other hand, counsel for complainant has submitted that strong motive has been assigned to the applicant and coaccused and the F.I.R. itself indicates that in the murder of the father of deceased, the applicant and other co-accused are convicted for ten years and appeal is pending in the High Court. He further submitted that the prosecution case as set up in the F.I.R is corroborating with the statement of fact witnesses namely Sanjay Lodhi, Chingu and Ram Gopal Lodhi, who have supported the case to the extent that the applicant and other co-accused were seen going towards the place of occurrence and counsel for complainant further submits that it is a clinching evidence because the deceased was done to death at the same place, in the same locality and since there is strong motive with them, therefore, it can be inferred that the accused committed murder of the deceased. He has further drawn attention of the Court towards the provision of Section 437(1)(ii) Cr.P.C and has submitted that once the applicant has been convicted for ten years imprisonment coupled with the fact that he was involved in the murder of the father of deceased, therefore, he is not entitled for bail. He has further relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Pratap Yadav versus Mitra Sen Yadav and anr (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1266 of 2002).

¶21

Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer of bail of the applicant and has adopted the argument of learned counsel for complainant.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record, also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the

¶23

argument that strong motive has been assigned to the applicant coupled with provisions of Section 437 (1)(ii) Cr.P.C, the argument that the fact witnesses, namely, Sanjay Lodhi, Chingu and Ram Gopal Lodhi, have supported the prosecution case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

¶25

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, unaffected by the observations made by this Court, within a period of one year, without providing any unnecessary adjournment to either parties."

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record, also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the argument that strong motive and enmity have been assigned to the applicants as they have been convicted for ten years in the murder of the father of the deceased and after enlarging on bail, the applicants used to threaten the deceased for compromise in the aforesaid case, otherwise to face dire consequences; the argument that the fact witnesses, namely, Sanjay Lodhi, Chingu and Ram Gopal Lodhi, have supported the prosecution case and the argument that bail application of the coaccused having similar role, has been rejected by this Court, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

¶27

Bail application is accordingly rejected .

¶28

.

¶29

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶30

Order Date :- 17.5.2024 Rao/-

¶31

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Deshraj Rawat and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deshraj Rawat and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kailash vs State of U.P. Thru.the Addl. Secy. Home and 4 Others

Prashant Bhandari and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Savita Nandan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Faiz Alam @ Billu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Manish Chand Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Chhotu @ Naseem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others