Sushil and Others vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—Heard Sri. Anup Ghosh, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., Sri. Ashutosh Tripathi, learned Counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

This bail application has been moved by the applicants Sushil, Nirbhay and Rajbir with a prayer that they may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1215 of 2009 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120B, I.P.C. P.S. Loni, district Ghaziabad.

The facts, in brief, of this case are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Deepak on 1.7.2009 at 7.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 1.7.2009 at about 4.30 p.m. The applicants are named in the F.I.R., two miscreants were unknown. It is alleged that on the day of the alleged incident, i.e., 1.7.2009 a date was fixed for evidence in the Court of Baghpat in a case of murder of first informant''s father, due to which the first informant, his uncles Anil and Surendra had come to Court of Baghpat, they were witnesses. The murder of the father of the first informant was committed on 2.10.2005 and it was committed by Pradhan Sushil Kumar and others, they were having enmity and many murderous assaults were made. On 11.5.2009, the applicant Sushil and his associates Nirbhay and others had done the marpeet with his uncle Surendra. Its case was registered at Police Station Doghat. It was apprised by first informant''s uncle Anil that applicant Sushil, his family members and persons of his gang are intending to commit his murder, for security the officers were informed. On 1.7.2009, the first informant alongwith his both uncles after attending the proceedings of Kutchery Baghpat were going to Loni by sitting in a bus, at about 4.30 p.m. three persons in which one was Mohan raise up and discharged the shot towards Anil by pistol, after receiving the gun shot injury, he fell down inside the bus. The panic was created among the passengers of the bus. Due to fear and terror of driver, the bus was disbalanced, the miscreants fired in the air and fled away from the place of the occurrence through a Maruti Car. Thereafter police came at the place of the occurrence and took away the deceased to S.T.V. where the deceased Anil has lost his life. The alleged incident has been committed by the hardened criminal who were hired by the applicants. The applicants applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad who rejected the same on 1.9.2009.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicants that applicant No. 1 Sushil was elected Pradhan of village Daha in the year 2005 by defeating one Ajit son of Brijendra alias Brijpal. Ajit was a hardened criminal, he was involved in 16 criminal cases, ultimately he was killed in a police encounter. According to F.I.R. the applicants have not caused any injury on the person of the deceased or injured, the only allegation against them is that they hired criminal for committing the alleged offence. The witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. are highly interested and partisan. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution story. In the present case the copy of the post mortem examination report could not be obtained despite the efforts were made by the Investigating Officer. In this case apart from the witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. no passenger of the bus have been interrogated on 18.9.2009. A murder was committed regarding which one Rohit Rana of village Daha lodged a report under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, I.P.C., it was registered as Case Crime No. 200 of 2006, P.S. Doghat, district Baghpat in which Amit son of Brijendra, Babbal alias Anil (the deceased) and Surendra, the witness of this case were made accused. Its witness was Kamal. On 2.10.2009, Amit had lodged the F.I.R. against applicant Nos. 1 and 2 u/s 302, I.P.C. in Case Crime No. 1357 of 2005. The deceased of this case Anil had lodged the F.I.R. against in Case Crime No. 166 of 2009 under Sections 452, 323, 324, 506, 307 and 120B, I.P.C. at P.S. Doghat on 11.5.2009. In aforesaid cases the applicants No. 1 and 2 were released on bail. The allegation against the applicants is that they have conspired to commit the murder of the deceased Anil while they were in jail, but there is no proof of hiring of the killers. The story cited by the witness Surendra regarding conspiracy is fully dramatic, fictitious and unbelievable. In the present case, the applicants have been falsely implicated on the ground of old enmity.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that in the present case, the witness of a murder case has been killed. The applicant Sushil and Nirbhay are having criminal antecedents, they are involved in many criminal cases. The present case is a result of conspiracy hatched by the applicants due to which the murder has been committed by the hardened criminals. On the day of the alleged incident the first informant and the deceased has gone to attend the proceedings of the Court, the applicants Sushil and Nirbhay had come from the jail and they were going to Court campus, they have given an indication for the purpose of identification of the deceased Anil to Sheelu, Monu and Mohan and they were asked to remove the deceased from the way. Sheelu, Monu and Mohan were seen by Rajbir on 18.5.2009, they were having the conversation, their conversation were heard by Sohan Pal and Surendra, they were saying that the deceased Anil will be murdered when he will come after attending the date in the Court, whatsoever, money would be spent. On 3.7.2009, Rajbir who is a police constable was arrested. But Investigating Officer has not collected the copy of post mortem examination report even he was personally summoned in the Court. The witnesses of this case were also assaulted. In case, the applicants are released on bail they shall not permit the witnesses to depose their evidence in the Court.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned Counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record, it appears that applicants are having the criminal antecedent, they had come to attend the proceedings on the Court, on the day of the incident the deceased was identified by them, the deceased was witness of a murder case, for ensuring the fair trial, it is not proper to release him on bail, the gravity of the offence is too much. The applicants are not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly, this application is rejected.