Subhash vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Subhash with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 160 of 2008 under Sections 302/109/120B, I.P.C., P. S. Kavi Nagar, district Ghaziabad.

The facts in brief of this case are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by J. P. Singh on 17.2.2008 at 10.00 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 17.2.2008 at about 8.30 a.m. at P.S. Kavi Nagar, the distance of the police station was about 3 km. from the alleged place of occurrence. The F.I.R. has been lodged against two or three unknown boys alleged therein that the deceased Ajay Chaudhary who was working as Manager in a Firm of Greater Noida was having a cell phone conversation when he was standing on the road side out of his house at about 8.30 a.m. on 17.2.2008, in the meantime two or three unknown boys came there and caused gun shot injury on his head consequently he fell down. The persons who committed the murder of the deceased were identified by the first informant and his daughter-in-law in electric light. The deceased in an injured condition was taken to Yashoda Hospital where he was declared dead. According to the post-mortem examination report the deceased has sustained six ante-mortem injuries in which injury Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are gun shot wounds of injury, Injury Nos. 2 and 6 were gun shot wounds of exit. During investigation the statement of Smt. Deepa wife of the deceased was recorded u/s 161, Cr. P.C. who also identified the accused persons she stated that the persons who caused the injures was aged about 30 to 35 years. He was already seen by her and remembered that he was often seen in the balcony of one Ranjana who is her neighbour. The statement of Smt. Deepa was recorded on 18.2.2008, i.e., on the next day of the alleged incident thereafter the I.O. came to the quarter of Ranjana which is in front of house of the deceased on the first floor but the same was found locked. On 27.2.2008, the applicant was seen by the first informant at the house of Smt. Ranjana, it''s information was given by the first informant to the officer-in-charge of P. S. Kavi Nagar, on that information the officer-in-charge of P. S. Kavi Nagar came at the house No. 831, Sanjai Nagar Sector 23, Kavi Nagar and found one man and one woman inside the house who became too much perturbed after seeing the police. In the meantime the first informant J. P. Singh, Smt. Deepa wife of the deceased alongwith many other persons came at the house of Smt. Ranjana and identified the applicant who committed the murder of the deceased. The applicant was apprehended by the police who made a confessional statement before the police by narrating the story that he was having illicit relations with Smt. Ranjana but it was opposed by the deceased who was saying that in that locality the sisters and daughters are living who were badly affected by his relationship with Smt. Ranjana thereafter at the saying of Smt. Ranjana the deceased was killed by him on 17.2.2008 at about 8.30 p.m. The applicant and Smt. Ranjana were taken into custody by the police and at their pointing out of the applicant his licensed revolver which was used in the commission of the murder of the deceased was recovered from a room at about 3.45 p.m. on 27.2.2008, the empty cartridges used in the commission of the alleged offence were found in the round chamber of the revolver, some live cartridges were found also in the said chamber.

Thereafter the statement of Smt. Ranjana was also recorded by the police who made a confessional statement the statement of first informant J. P. Singh and Smt. Deepa were again recorded on 20.3.2008 they stated that the applicant was the person who committed the alleged offence. On the same day the statement of Sudhir Commander resident of the same locality and Surendra and others were recorded by the I.O. and statement of other witnesses have also been recorded by the I.O. and the charge-sheet has been submitted by the I.O. against the applicant and Smt. Ranjana.

Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, senior advocate assisted by Sri C. P. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. and Sri D. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case, the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., the applicant was apprehended by the police on the basis of doubt and suspicion on 27.2.2008 and has been falsely implicated. In the present case alongwith Smt. Ranjana the first informant and Smt. Deepa, the wife of the deceased are not eye-witness of the alleged incident because they have come out to their house after hearing the sound of firing. According to the F.I.R. two or three unknown miscreants have committed the alleged offence but subsequently, it has been specified that only the applicant who committed the murder of the applicant the F.I.R. version has been changed. The alleged occurrence has taken place in the dark hours of the night, there is no other witness of the alleged incident. According to the statement of first informant two unknown miscreants caused injuries on the person of the deceased but according to the statement of Smt. Deepa only one person aged about 30 or 35 years had committed the alleged offence, it shows that they have not seen the alleged incident. The applicant has named after 10 days of the alleged incident and he has not been put up for identification. The recovery of licensed revolver of the applicant from his house is not connecting with the commission of the alleged offence. The applicant is peace loving person. He has been falsely implicated only on the basis of doubt and suspicion. The co-accused Smt. Ranjana has been released on bail on 11.3.2008 by learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, therefore, the applicant may also be released on bail.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that the alleged occurrence has taken place at about 8.30 p.m. on 17.2.2008 but in F.I.R. itself it has been clearly mentioned that the persons who committed the murder of the deceased have been identified by the first informant and his daughter-in-law and Smt. Deepa. The same statement has been given by the first informant which was recorded immaterial after lodging the F.I.R. The statement of Smt. Deepa the wife of the deceased has been recorded on 18.2.2008, i.e., on the next day of the alleged incident, she clearly stated that the persons who committed the murder was often seen by her in the balcony of the house of co-accused Smt. Ranjana. The house of Smt. Ranjana was in front of the house of the deceased, she was not knowing the name of the applicant. On 27.2.2008 when the applicant came to the house of co-accused Ranjana, he was identified by the first informant and wife of the deceased that he was the person who committed the murder of the deceased, it''s information was given to the station officer of P.S. Kavi Nagar who came there. The applicant and Smt. Ranjana who have confessed before the police and at the pointing out of the applicant the licensed revolver which was used in the commission of the alleged offence was recovered from his house. In it''s chamber empty and live cartridges were found but according to the post-mortem examination report also the deceased has sustained four gun shot would of entry. The dimension of entry wounds is same which may be caused by revolver. The applicant was having strong motive to commit the murder of the deceased because he was objecting the applicant who was having illicit relations with Smt. Ranjana. Prior to the alleged incident the husband of Smt. Ranjana was also murdered by the applicant and others on account of having illicit relations with co-accused Smt. Ranjana. The applicant was summoned by the trial court in exercise of powers conferred u/s 319, Cr. P.C. The applicant is a criminal minded person, in case he is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence, therefore, he may not be released on bail.

Considering the facts, circumstances of this case, submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned Counsel for the complainant and considering the gravity of the offence which is too much and without expressing any option on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. The payer for bail is refused.

Accordingly, this application is rejected.