Virendra vs State of U.P.

V.D. Chadurvedi, J.—Heard.

It is alleged that on 29.9.2006 at about 7.00 a.m. the co-accused Munendra loudly said to Fateh Singh (father of the complainant Jasbir Singh) that Fateh Singh had done pairvi in the Court with Sarvar therefore, the accused persons would not leave him alive and thereafter the accused Munendra, Surendra and Harendra started firing at Fateh Singh giving threats to the complainant and other witnesses. Fateh Singh died on the spot. The F.I.R. of this incident was lodged at the police station same day at about 8.05 a.m. by the son of the deceased. Regarding motive it was stated in the F.I.R. that complainant''s brother Manvir was earlier murdered brutely in the year 2004 by the same accused persons. Deceased Fateh Singh was doing pairvi in the said murder case. The applicant Virendra had threatened, about 8-10 days before the incident of this case, that Virendra would go inside the jail on 23rd day of the month and thereafter, Virendra''s brother would commit murder of Fateh Singh.

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail application stating that murder of Fateh Singh was committed just because the deceased Fateh Singh was witness against the applicant in the murder case of the deceased''s son Manvir and he was doing pairvi in the said case. He also argues that the person who tried to take judicial system in his own hands, should not be spared and should be dealt adequately.

The applicant''s counsel contends that the allegation against the applicant is only of conspiracy for the murder of Fateh Singh, that the applicant was in jail from 6 days before the date of incident ; that the co-accused Prem Singh for the similar allegations had been enlarged on bail by the another Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.2.2007.

I have considered the arguments of both sides and have also considered the ugly motive behind the incident. If the tendency of criminals to win the criminal cases by committing the murders of prosecution witnesses continued, it would be a great threat to distort and destroy the judicial system.

I have also considered that the incident has taken place on 29.9.2006 in broad day light at 7.00 a.m. and the report, containing the motive, was lodged same day promptly at 8.05 a.m. and the allegation of threat given by the applicant, is stated in such promptly lodged F.I.R.

The releasing on bail of an accused who conspired for the murder of a witness to get acquittal in another murder case would be the great jolt to the judicial system. No case for bail. His bail is rejected.