Dismissed

Tejas Pratap Singh v. State of Up and another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024CRLA/735/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal regarding bail rejection in a murder and SC/ST atrocity case involving the appellant. The Single Judge dismissed the appeal, finding the trial court's order lawful based on prosecution evidence of complicity and severity of offense despite appellant's lack of antecedents.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal is dismissed. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within one year.

Tejas Pratap Singh vs State of Up and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:136797

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 735 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Tejas Pratap Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Nikhil Pandey,Padmaker Pandey,Rakesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Chandra Prakash Pandey,G.A.,Phool Chandra Saroj

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Compliance affidavit filed today by State is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 alongwith learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 01.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar in Case Crime No.339 of 2023, under Sections 302, 323, 364, 342, 506, 34 I.P.C. & 3(2)(V) SC/ST, Police Station Rawatpur, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶9

It is submitted that in this case F.I.R. was lodged on 10.09.2023 against the appellant Tejas and 3-4 unknown persons for committing murder of the deceased Bittu Valmiki on 06.09.2023 after delay of four days. Further submitted that the body of the injured was found at Tikonia Park adjacent to Park View Homes apartment which was taken to Kulwanti Hospital by informant and her sons where he was admitted for treatment as a case of road traffic accident. During the course of treatment he succumbed to injuries on 10.09.2023 and then present F.I.R. was lodged by the informant. Further submitted that the injuries found on the person of the deceased shows that his death was caused by someone else in road accident. Further submitted that during the course of investigation the statement of Himanshu was recorded by I.O. after two months in which he disclosed the name of present appellant and co-accused Shiva Sharma for taking deceased on motorcycle in his presence. It was also disclosed by the witness Himanshu that he narrated the aforesaid incident to the complainant and other members of the family even though F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons which shows that the prosecution story has been concocted. Further submitted that a false story was developed by the police for causing injuries on the person of the deceased within Pratishtha Guest House by the co-accused Shiva Sharma and the present appellant by making assault on him brutally and then bringing the deceased in black color Fortuner car and throwing him on the place where he was found injured. This story is totally false. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the vehicle of the

¶10

appellant is said to be of a black colour but no such colour was mentioned by the police in the recovery memo of vehicle. There was no any public witness on the spot. The injuries were also simple in nature and not sufficient to cause the death. Further submitted that present appellant who owned the Pratishtha Guest House was not connected to co-accused Shiva Sharma except the conversation on mobile phone on the basis of which it cannot be said that he also participated in making assault on the deceased within Pratishtha Guest House with co-accused Shiva Sharma. There is no any other evidence on record to show that present appellant was also involved in committing brutal murder of the deceased by causing grievous injuries on his person. There is no any C.C.T.V. record to show the presence or complicity of the present appellant. Further submitted that on 11.09.2023 the coaccused Shiva Sharma was taken to the police station with his father where his father was beaten by the police and challaned u/s 107/116 Cr.P.C. and after release within one week he died and the co-accused was booked in the present case. Further submitted that Om Prakash & Manoj Chauhan who were said to be security guards in the said guest house have already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present appellant is on better footing. Entire allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and in the statement are false. The Learned trial Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the amended provisions of SC/ST Act. Appellant is in jail since 12.09.2023 having no criminal antecedent. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the deceased was caused injuries in the Pratishtha Guest House by co-accused Shiva Sharma and present appellant with baseball bat. Thereafter, he was thrown by them to the place where his body was found and in the next morning the information was given to the informant by Naresh then he was taken to the hospital. Since he was unknown to the complainant/informant at that time as to how he sustained injuries that was the reason she did not lodge the present F.I.R. and took the injured to the Kulwanti Hospital where he was admitted as road traffic accident case. When it was disclosed to the informant and members of her family by Himanshu that deceased was taken by Shiva Sharma and present appellant on motorcycle, present F.I.R. was lodged against the appellant and unknown co-accused persons after death of the deceased. The statement of Suraj was recorded on 11.09.2023 by the I.O. in which he narrated the version as aforesaid before the I.O. and name of other co-accused also came into light. During the course of investigation blood was found on the floor of the aforesaid guest house and also on backside of its gate. The baseball bat was also found blood stained and even in the vehicle used for carrying the injured was found blood stained. All these objects were examined by the police field unit team in which the presence of blood was found to be verified which confirmed the place of occurrence within the Pratishtha Guest House that was owned by the

¶12

present appellant Tejas Pratap Singh and also the fact that the body of the injured/deceased was taken in the vehicle by the accused persons to the place where it was lying. It is also contended that C.C.T.V. footage of Park View Homes apartment was collected during the investigation in which injured was seen to be thrown on the road from that car. During the course of investigation the C.D.R. of present appellant and co-accused Shiva Sharma was also examined in which it was found that on the date of occurrence i.e. 06.09.2023 there was conversation between co-accused Shiva Sharma and the present appellant and he was present at the place of occurrence. On 08.09.2023 again there was conversation between both of them on the basis of which it was established that on the date of occurrence both the accused persons Shiva Sharma and the present appellant Tejas Pratap Singh were present together. In this way, the complicity of the present appellant for causing injuries to the deceased with co-accused Shiva Sharma cannot be denied. It is also contended that the Pratishtha Guest House was owned by the present appellant Tejas Pratap Singh where incident took place, therefore, it cannot be expected that he will keep the C.C.T.V. camera on. In this way, the appellant cannot be said to be innocent and the order passed by the learned Special Judge is lawful, therefore, he cannot be said to be entitled for bail.

¶13

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the statements of Suraj & Himanshu, C.D.R. detail, the manner of causing injuries, the recovery of blood from Pratishtha Guest House and in the car, there appears no ground to enlarge the appellant on bail. The order passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act cannot be said to be illegal, therefore, it does not warrant any interference by this Court but this appeal being devoid of merit is liable to dismissed.

¶15

Accordingly, this criminal appeal is, hereby, dismissed .

¶16

Learned trial court is directed to make its endeavor to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶17

Order Date :- 27.8.2024 Suraj Srivastav

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tejas Pratap Singh v. State of Up and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejas Pratap Singh v. State of Up and another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajesh Gupta and Other vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Singh Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Firoz Ali vs State of Up and 3 Others

Master Shivansh Mishra, Thru. His Father Vishnu Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Gama Sahani @ Pramod Sahani vs State of U.P. and Another

Aryan Gupta vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another