Sarju vs State of U.P.

Ashok Srivastava, J.—This second bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused Sarju. His first bail application was rejected on merits by this Court on 5.2.2007. The accused is involved in Case Crime No. 276 of 2006 u/s 302, I.P.C. police station Bewar, district Mainpuri. The relevant Sessions Trial No. is 259 of 2006.

An F.I.R. was lodged with police by one Shiv Pratap Singh on 9.6.2006 at about 2.10 a.m. against two unknown persons. According to this F.I.R. the complainant alongwith his several family members and relatives had gone to village Sher Khan near Aonla Kheda to perform Tilak ceremony of his daughter. His daughter-in-law Shivani, wife Kalpna and daughter Kamini were at home which is situated in Mohalla Brahmanan, Devi Road, Kasba and P. S. Bevar district Mainpuri. At about 2 a.m. in the night two unknown persons had entered the house of the complainant and murdered Smt. Shivani. An F.I.R. was registered at the police station and matter was investigated. When the witnesses of fact were examined by the Investigating Officer the names of the accused persons came to light.

According to the statements of the witnesses u/s 161, Cr. P.C. the accused persons in the fateful night telephoned the deceased and the eye-witness Km. Kamini telling them that they were coming to latter''s house to have some "final talks" with them. It has also been alleged that the accused Sarju had developed illicit relationship with one Km. Vandana who is sister of the deceased. When the fact of this relationship came to the knowledge of the deceased she had opposed it vehemently and sent her sister Vandana away to her father''s home. The resistance shown by her in this illicit relationship had irritated the accused Sarju and as per allegations he wanted to come to the residence of the deceased to have some final talk in the matter. The deceased told the accused persons to come to her house and to have the talk. As a consequence both the accused persons reached the residence of the deceased where certain altercations had taken place between the deceased and the accused persons and during the course of altercation the co-accused Akhilesh got hold of the deceased and the applicant Sarju inflicted several knife blows in her body. As a consequence, the deceased fell down on the ground and died at the spot.

After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was filed in the case in the court of learned Magistrate and the criminal case was committed to the Court of Sessions. During the course of trial of the sessions case an application u/s 311, Cr. P.C. was moved before the Court. The same was heard by the learned Presiding Officer and was allowed. Thereafter, one Udit Narain Singh, grandfather of the deceased was examined as C.W. 1 and Om Narain Singh was examined as C.W. 2. Thereafter, Om Narain Singh moved an application before the trial court u/s 319, Cr. P.C. The said application was heard by the learned trial court and it allowed the same on 6.9.2008, vide Annexure-4 to the second bail application. Through this order, the learned trial court had summoned Shiv Pratap Singh (father-in-law), Smt. Kalpana (mother-in-law), Kamini (sister-in-law) and Indra Kumar (husband) u/s 498A, 304B, 120B, I.P.C. and 3/4 D. P. Act fixing 20.9.2008 for appearance of the above named four accused persons.

In the above changed circumstances, present second bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused Sarju.

At the very outset it should be mentioned here that none of the newly summoned accused persons is before this Court for any relief. It should also be mentioned here that legality or propriety of the order passed by learned lower court u/s 319, Cr. P.C. has not been challenged before this Court. In this changed circumstances only the applicant accused Sarju has moved this second bail application.

The second bail application has been opposed by learned A.G.A.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The first bail application of the accused Sarju was rejected on merits. Copy of the application u/s 319, Cr. P.C. has been filed from the side of the applicant-accused which is Annexure-3 to this bail application.

I have gone through the second bail application. I do not find that applicant-accused can be given any benefit of the facts mentioned in this application. In para 15 of the application u/s 319, Cr. P.C. the applicant-Om Narain Singh has specifically stated that the real murderers are Sarju and Akhilesh who were arrested by the police of Police Station, Bewar. It has also been mentioned in this application that actually Sarju and Akhilesh had killed the deceased who were hired for the purpose by the father-in-law, husband and other family members under a conspiracy. The applicant-Om Narain Singh has also mentioned that the deceased was murdered as she had failed to fulfil the demand of dowry made by her husband and his relatives.

I have considered all the aspects of the case. The said changed circumstances do not in any way help the accused. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on merits. There is no fresh ground on the basis of which the accused can be released on bail.

Therefore, the second bail application of the accused Sarju is also rejected.