Manoj (In Jail) vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—The applicant seeks bail in crime No. 1193 of 2006 u/s 302 I.P.C. of P.S. Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar.

I have heard arguments of Sri Amit Daga, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Onkar Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record carefully.

An F.I.R. was lodged on 22.08.2006 at 10.10 a.m. at P.S. Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar by the complainant Rishi Pal against the applicant Manoj and his brother Vinod. A case u/s 302 I.P.C. at crime No. 1193/06 was registered against them. The allegations made in the F.I.R., in brief, are that both the accused committed the murder of their father Mehak Singh in the field on 22.08.2006 at about 09.00 a.m. by causing injuries to him by means of firearms.

Principle of stare decisis is the ground for bail in this case, about which it was submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that after contest, the co-accused Vinod has been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Muzaffar Nagar vide judgement dated 17.08.2007 passed in S.T. No. 344 of 2007 (State v. Vinod Kumar @ Vikki) and hence, the applicant should be granted bail as the entire prosecution case and complicity of both the accused in the incident of murder of their father has been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court in aforesaid Session Trial.

It was further contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that trial of the applicant is barred on the principle of stare decisis due to acquittal of co-accused Vinod and entire proceeding arising out of crime No. 1193 of 2006 pending against the applicant is liable to be quashed and hence on this ground, the applicant deserve bail. For this contention, the learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following rulings:

(i) Baij Nath and Ors. v. State of U.P. (XLIX) 2004 ACC 303.

(ii) Prem Kumar and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr. (53) 2005 ACC 593.

(iii) Rashim v. State of U.P. and Anr. (LIII) 2005 ACC 636.

(iv) Rajendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr. (LVI) 2006 ACC 611.

(v) Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Akhilesh Singh,

The learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant on the other hand vehemently contended that the applicant does not deserve bail in this heinous crime and the trial pending against him is not barred. For this contention, reliance has been placed on the case of Rajan Rai v. State of Bihar (2006) 1 SCC 209. The contention of the learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant was that inspite of the acquittal of co-accused Vinod, the trial of the applicant has to be made and since the applicant remained absconding for about two years, hence, he should not be granted bail, because after being released on bail, he may abscond again and will not attend the Court. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the complainant that revision has been preferred by the complainant against the judgement dated 17.08.2007 passed in S.T. No. 344 of 2007 and hence, that judgement is not relevant at this stage.

Having carefully gone through the judgement dated 17.08.2007 of S.T. No. 344 of 2007, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-IV in this case, in my opinion, prima facie case for granting bail to the accused is made out. The following findings recorded by learned Trial Court in the aforesaid judgement are worth mentioning:

ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; d mijksDr of.kZr n`"VkUr esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vkyksd esa ;fn vfHk;kstu lk{; dh fo''oluh;rk dks ij[kk tk;s rks esjs fuf''pr vfHker esa vfHk;kstu lk{; vfHk;qDr fouksn dh bl vijk/k esa lafyIrrk dh iqf"V djus gsrq i;kZIr ugh gS vkSj fdlh Hkh n`f"V ls vfHk;qDr fokuksn fojfpr vkjksiks dk nks"kh orZeku lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrk A esjs fopkj ls vfHk;kstu i{k dk dFkkud u dsoy vO;ogkfjd] vfo''oluh; oju vlEHkkO; gS cfYd og fof/k ds LFkkfir ekin.Mks ij [kjk ugh mrjk gS A vfHk;kstu lk{khx.k dk lk{; ,d nwljs ds leUo; ,oa fujUrjrk esa u gksdj fojks/kkHkk"kh rFkk xEHkhj fdLe dh folaxfr;ksa ls xzLr gSA �fu.kZ; dk vkarfjd ist 17� A

ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dh lanfHkZr nksusk gh uthjksa eswa izfrikfnr O;oLFkkvks ds vkyksd esa vfHk;kstu dFkkud rFkk muds }kjk izLrqr vijk/k ds gsrq dh izkalfxdrk ,oa Lohdk;Zrk ij fopkj djus ds dze esa eS bu fu"d"kksZ ij igqaprk gwWa fd u rks vfHk;kstu dFkkud tSlk yk;k x;k gS og izksosfoy gS vkSj u gh vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk izLrqr vijk/k ds gsrqd O;ogkfjd ,oa Lohdk;Z gS A �fu.kZ; dk vkarfjd isTk 21�

bl ekeys dh vU; ifjfLFkr;ka ,oa vfHk;kstu lk{; es mRiUUk folaxfr;ka Hkh bl lansg dh iqf"V djrh gS fd vfHk;qDr vkSj mlds HkkbZ us vius firk dh gR;k ugh dh Fkh D;ksfd vius firk dh gR;k djus ls os fdlh Hkh izdkj ykHkkfUor ugh gksus tk jgs Fks A vfHk;kstu lk{khx.k dh eq[;k Ik`PNk ds ;g dFku fd eukst ,oa fouksn us vius firk egd flag ij ncko cuk j[kk Fkk fd og viuh tehu ;k rks muds uke dj ns ;k mls cspdj mldk iSlk mUgs ns ns] dks xEHkhjrk ls ns[kdj ij ;g n`f"Vxkspj gksrk gS fd izFke lwpuk fjiksZV ,oa lk{khx.k dh eq[; Ik`PNk ds mijksDr dFku iw.kZr% cukoVh gS A �fu.kZ; dk vkarfjd ist 27�

pwafd vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk yk;k x;k e`rd egd flag dh gR;k dk mijksDr gsrqd eu efLr"d dks izHkkfor ugh djrk ,oa U;kf;d foods dks lqfuf''pr ugh djrk] vr% ;g U;k;ky; bl fuf''pr vfHker dk gS fd e`rd egd flag dh gR;k vfHk;qDx.k }kjk djus dk dksbZ dkj.k gh ugh Fkk A �fu.kZ; dk vkarfjd ist 30�

Three witnesses namely P.W. 1, Rishi Pal, P.W. 2, Hukam Singh and P.W. 3, Devi Chandra were examined in the aforesaid session trial. Although in the F.I.R., the complainant Rishi Pal alone has been shown as eyewitness of the incident of murder of deceased Mehak Singh, but during investigation two more witnesses namely Hukum Singh and Devi Chand were introduced. After making evaluation of the testimony of these witnesses, the following observations have been made by the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid judgement:

vfHk;kstu lk{khx.k _f"kiky Ikh0MCyw 1] :du flag ih0MCyw 2 rFkk nsohpUn ih0MCyw 3 ds lk{; dks xEHkhjrk ls ns[kus ds mijkUr eS bl fopkj dk gwWa fd vfHk;kstu lk{khx.k :du flag ih0MCyw 02 rFkk nsohpan ih0MCyw0 3 dh mifLFkfr ?kVukLFky ijk lk{; ls fl) ugh gq;h gS vkSj U;k;y; bUgh fu"d"kksZ dks fudkyus gsrq ck/; gqvk gS fd mijksDr lk{khx.k e`rd egd flag dh gR;k ds le; ?kVuk LFky ij ekStwn ugh Fksa rFkk muds }kjk e`rd egd flag dh gR;k gskrs ugh ns[kh x;h Fkh A �fu.kZ; dk vkarfjd ist 34�

ijUrq ih0MCyw 1 ds lk{; dks mijksDr ekikn.Mksa ij tkapus ds mijkUr eS ,d fo''oluh; lk{kh ugh ikrk vkSj esjs fopkj ls ih0MCyw 1 us vfHk;qDr dks nks"kfl) Bgjkus ds ,d ek= mn~ns''; ls cukoVh ,oa vlR; lk{; fn;k gS A mldk lk{; u dsoy izFke lwpuk fjiksZV ds dFkuks ds ijs ,oa foijhr gS cfYd Loa; mlds c;ku vUrZxr /kkjk 161 n0iz0 la0 ds Hkh izfrdwy gS vkSj bEizwoesaV dh dksfV esa vkrk gS A �fu.kZ; dk vkarfjd ist 38�

bl izdkj ih0MCyw 1 dh eq[; Ik`PNk dk ;g c;ku fd :du flag] nsohpan vkSj v:.k us lkjk okdk ns[kk Fkk] LokHkkfod] fo''oluh; ,oa Lohdk;Z izrhr gksrk A ih0MCyw0 1 _f"kiky ds lk{; dh ;g detksfj;ka mls ,d iw.kZ :i ls fo''oluh; lk{kh ugh cukrh A �fu.kZ; dk vkarfjd ist 40�

mijksDr dkj.kks ls eS bUgh fu"d"kksZ ij igqaprk gwW fd ih0MCyw 2 :du flag ,d fu"i{k o fo''oluh; lk{kh ugh gS og e`rd egd flag dh gR;k gksrs le; ?kVuk LFky okys [ksr es ekStwn ugh Fkk A ih0 MCyw 2 u dsoy ml ?kVuk LFky okys [ksr ij ekStwn ugh Fkk cfYd og vf/kdre ml [ksr tks xkao dh eq[; lM+d ls tksM+us okyh pdjksM ij Fkk ekStwn gks ldrk Fkk ijUrq tc mls e`rd dh gR;k gkssrs ns[kus dk dksbZ volj miyC/k ugh Fkk A �fu.kZ; dk vkarfjd ist 45� A

bu ifjfLFkr;ksa esa ih0 MCyw0 3 ls ;g vk''kk ugh dh tk ldrh fd og LorU= ,oa fo''oluh; dksfV dk lk{; nsxk D;ksfd viuh ukSdjh dks cpkuk gh mldh lgh izkFkfedrk gksxh A vU;Fkk mldk lk{; lEc) ifjfLFkr;ksa ds vuqdwy ugh ik;k x;k gS vkSj lEc) ifjfLFkr;kWa Hkh ?kVuk LFky ij mldh mifLFkfr dks udkjrh gS A �fu.kZ; dk vkarfjd ist 47�

lk{; ds mijksDr foospu ,oa mijksDr dkj.kksa ls eS bUgh LokHkkfod fu"d"kksZ ij igqWaprk gwWa fd e`rd egd flag dh gR;k dks fl) djus ds gsrq ftu 3 lk{khx.k dks p''enhn lk{kh ds :i es ijhf{kr djk;k x;k gS] mudh ?kVukLFky ij mifLFkfr lansg ls ijs ,oa fo''oluh; �fu.kZ; dk vkarfjd ist 49 rFkk 50� A

vfHk;kstu lk{; dh xEHkhjrk ls fo''ys"k.k djus ds mijkar eS Loa; ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k cpko i{k ds rdksZ ls gh lger ikrk gwW vkSj esjs fopkj ls Hkh e`rd dh gR;k izkr% 9 cts ugh gqbZ Fkh vFkok izFke lwpuk fjiksZV dks ,UvhVkbe ntZ dj n''kkZ;k x;k gS A �fu.kZ; dk vkarfjd ist 50�

,sls esa tc rgjhjh fjiksZV esa vijk/k ls lEcfU/kr vU; fooj.kks dk Hkh mYys[k ugh fd;k x;k Fkk] eS bl vfHker dk gwWa fd vijk/k dh izFke lwpuk fjiksZV ,d LokHkkfod ,oa fo''oluh; nLrkost ugh gS cfYd og ifjoknh _f"kiky ds ,d "kM;U= dk gh ifj.kke gS A �fu.kZ; dk vkarfjd ist 52�

Although I fully agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. that in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Rajan Rai v. State of Bihar (2006)(1) SCC 209, the trial of the applicant is not barred and criminal proceedings arising out of crime No. 1193 of 2006 u/s 302 I.P.C. of P.S. Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar pending against the applicant cannot be quashed due to the acquittal of co-accused Vinod in S.T. No. 344 of 2007, but having regard to the above mentioned findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in the said judgement, in my opinion, the applicant deserves bail in this case.

Let the applicant Manoj involved in case crime No. 1193 of 2006 u/s 302 I.P.C., P.S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned and executing an undertaking in the following terms:

The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence by intimidating the witnesses.

He shall cooperate with the investigation and speedy trial.

He shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

He shall attend the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar and P.S. Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar by tenth day of each month and his attendance will be recorded.