Allowed

Ravishankar Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2024/9271/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC regarding a shooting incident, the court allowed bail for the applicant despite the serious accusation. The court noted discrepancies in the timeline and content of prosecution witness statements and the fact that only one injured party was identified. Balancing the gravity of the offence with these indicia, the applicant was released on bonds

What did the court decide?

The applicant Ravishankar Pathak was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each.

Ravishankar Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30517

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9271 of 2023 Applicant :- Ravishankar Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Mishra,Amar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Mishra,Vidya Kant Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Amar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anant Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 182 of 2022, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Laliya, District Balrampur.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 21.11.2022 at 22:19 hours against- (i) Ravi Pathak (the applicant), (ii) Shiv Shankar Pathak and (iii) an unknown person, stating that the complainant's husband had gone to market where the accused persons killed by shooting at him and then they escaped.

¶9

The post mortem report of the dead body mentions a firearm entry wound over left side of occipital region, an abrasion on right big toe, an abrasion on right second toe and a metallic foreign body was recovered from left side of occiptial brain tissue and the cause of death was opined to be hemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem firearm injury.

¶10

After making an entry by the Purcha No. 7 dated 28.11.2022 , the investigating officer recorded that a mukhbir (the informer) told that

¶11

the applicant was keeping quite since the incident whereas it is said regarding him that he used to be mobile the entire day. As he was staying at his home since after the incident and was not moving out, the informer suggested that the applicant could be a suspect. The informer further told that Jamshed is the applicant's associate and he was also not being seen. It is further recorded in the Case Diary that some unnamed persons had told that the applicant and Jamshed had been seen together on a motorcycle on the date of the incident.

¶12

On the basis of aforesaid information, the applicant and Jamshed were arrested on 29.11.2022. In his custodial confessional statement, the applicant confessed having shot at the victim and a country made pistol along with an empty cartridge in its barrel was recovered embedded in the earth in an open field.

¶13

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case because of an old animosity between the parties. Besides the present case the applicant is involved in another case bearing Case Crime No. 212/2013, under Sections 308/34, 323/34, 504 I.P.C, P.S. Laliya, District Balrampur, in which he was convicted but has been granted the benefit of Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958.

¶14

The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail application and copies of material collected during the investigation has been annexed with the counter affidavit.

¶15

In the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, she reiterated the F.I.R version and she stated that after receiving information of the incident, she somehow reached the spot, took her husband to the hospital with the assistance of some villagers but his husband was not alive.

¶16

In the additional statement of the complainant recorded on 29.11.2022, she stated that a case is going on between her and the applicant and his father for the past eight years and those persons were pressurizing for withdrawal of the case. On the date of the incident when her husband was going with his servant, she was present on the road and she had seen Jamshed sitting on a motorcycle with the applicant and she believed that the applicant had got her husband eliminated in connivance with his father and other associates. Yet another additional statement of the complainant recorded on 24.12.2022, she further improved her version and said that she was present on the spot along with wife of the deceased's younger brother and she had seen Shiv Shankar Pathak, Ravi Shankar Pathak, Hari Shankar Pathak and Jamshed Siddiqui shooting at her husband with a country made pistol and a gun. She had identified the accused persons in the light of a torch being carried by her and in the light of a electric bulb installed at the shop. She further stated that she and her sister-inlaw started crying after the incident and she fell unconscious and started seeking help from other persons.

¶17

A muneem working in a country liquor shop stated that the deceased was sitting on the motorcycle while his servant had come to the shop to fetch liquor and as soon as the servant reached back after buying liquor, two persons came on a motorcycle and the person sitting on a pillion seat shot in the head of the victim and they escaped and she further stated that she could not identify the persons. One Lal ji Maurya, who was servant of the victim and was accompanying him at the time of the incident, got his statement recorded on 25.11.2023, and he stated that he had seen that Jamshed was driving a motorcycle, the applicant was riding its pillion seat and they had shot at the deceased. He did not assign the role of firing to any one of the two persons.

¶18

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-

¶19

accused persons, namely, Shiv Shankar Pathak and Jamshed Hasan have already been granted bail by means of orders dated 12.04.2023 and 18.04.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.3763 of 2023 and 5147 of 2023, respectively.

¶20

The learned A.G.A. as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and they have submitted that the incident has been witnessed by the muneem of the shop and the weapon used in the offence has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. They further submitted that the incident has been witnessed by Lal ji Maurya, who was the victim's servant and was accompanying him at the time of the incident.

¶21

I have considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, what prima facie appears from the material available on record at this stage is that in the F.I.R, the complainant alleged that she was present on the spot. In her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, she stated that upon receiving information of the incident she somehow reached the spot and thereafter took her husband to the hospital with the assistance of some persons. In the first additional statement recorded eight days after the incident, she stated that she had seen the applicant and Jamshed riding a motorcycle and she believed that the applicant had got her husband eliminated in connivance with his father and other accomplishes.

¶22

In the second additional statement recorded on 24.12.2022, the complainant stated that she had witnessed the incident and that four persons named by her had shot at her husband with a country made pistol and a gun. The deceased's servant has got his statement recorded on 31.01.2023 i.e. after about two months after the incident and he stated that he had seen the applicant and Jamshed riding the motorcycle and that they had shot at the deceased. He did not specifically state as to which of the aforesaid two persons had shot at the deceased. It is significant to note that the deceased suffered only a

¶23

single gun shot injury.

¶24

Although the complainant stated in her second additional statement that she had seen four persons shooting at a deceased with a country made pistol and a gun, neither a deceased suffers any gun shot injury nor any gun has been recovered. The complainant has stated that four persons had shot at the deceased and two co-accused persons have already been granted bail

¶25

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and without making any observations which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶26

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶27

Let the applicant- Ravishankar Pathak be released on bail in the aforesaid case, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶28

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶29

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶30

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶31

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶32

Order Date :- 18.4.2024 Preeti.

¶33

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ravishankar Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravishankar Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

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

Collector Kheri Vs the Additional Commissioner Administration Lucknow and 8 Ors.

Ravendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Department of Home and Another

Ekadashi Nishad Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Jayant Giri and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Rubina Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 9 Others

Rajit Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko and 6 Others