Angad Singh vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—Heard Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Dileep Kumar and Sri R. P, S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the complainant, and perused the record.

This application has been filed by the applicant Angad Singh with a prayer that he may released on bail in Case Crime No. 94 of 2011 under Sections 147, 148. 149 and 302, I.P.C. P.S. Gabhana district Aligarh.

The facts in brief of this case are that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Durg Pal Singh on 6.3.2011 at 10.00 a.m. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 6.3.2011 from 6.00 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. F.I.R. has been lodged on 6.3.2011 at about 6.00 a.m. The deceased Chandra Pal Singh had gone for morning walk, he did not return, then contact was made with him, he did not respond, thereafter, search was made and at about 8.30 a.m. the dead body of the deceased was found near the Junior High School, Bhakari, during investigation the name of the applicant came to light, according to the post-mortem examination report the deceased has sustained six ante-mortem injuries in which Injury No. 5 was gun shot wound of entry, its exit wound was injury No. 6, the remaining injuries were incised wounds, the applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Jude, Aligarh who rejected the same on 24.6.2011.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., the dead body of the deceased was found near the Junior High School, according to the F.I.R. the incident was not witnessed by any person but after 22 days of the alleged incident, applications were given in the police station concerned on 28.3.2011 and 29.3.2011 alleging therein that the applicants and other co-accused persons were seen in the company of the deceased by Prem Pal, Satyendra and Surendra Singh alias Sanju. There is no eye-witness account, thereafter, darantt was recovered at the pointing out of the applicant, the recovery of daranti was not supported by any Independent witness, the applicant was having no motive or intention to commit the alleged offence, The co-accused Vikki alias Viswajeet has been released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh on 9.5.2011, confessional statement of the applicant has been recorded by the Investigating Officer is wholly false and frivolous because the applicant has not made any confessional statement before the police, the applicant was involved in two criminal cases out of which he was acquitted in S. T. No. 856 of 2010 under Sections 302, I.P.C. on 6.2.2003, he has been convicted u/s 324, I.P.C. in S.T. No. 7 of 2008 against the order of conviction he has filed the Criminal Appeal No. 731 of 2011 in which he has been released on bail, the applicant is in jail since 30.3.2011, there is no chance of absconding of the applicant, therefore, he may be released on bail.

In reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant that it is a case in which the an advocate has been killed during investigation, witness came forward who stated that the deceased was seen in the company of the applicant and other co-accused person and at the pointing out of the applicant one daranti used In the commission of the offence has been recovered, the same has been sent to Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, the recovery of darantt has been made at the pointing out of the applicant, in the present case the independent witness, Manoj Kumar and Bhanu Pal Singh, have stated that the applicant was seen by three witnesses when he was behind the deceased, thereafter he was seen by them in running condition after committing the murder of the deceased. The applicant has confessed before the police, on his confessional statement blood stained daranti has been recovered. The deceased has sustained the injures. It is a pre-planned murder by hatching a conspiracy, the deceased has been killed. There are witness of the conspiracy also. According to the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer the co-accused Guddan discharged the shot causing injury to the deceased, thereafter, the applicant and the co-accused caused injury on the person of the deceased by using daranti, the applicant is having criminal antecedents, he was Involved in a murder case also, but subsequently, he was acquitted and he has been convicted u/s 324, I.P.C. The applicant was having enmity with the deceased with regard to the sale and purchase of the immovable property, during Investigation Investigating Officer has collected call details by getting the mobile phone of the applicant and the co-accused on surveillance which shows that the applicant and other co-accused persons were in regular in touch and they were making plan to commit the murder of the deceased.

The applicant is having the support of high profile politician also, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence, therefore, he may not be released on bail.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case an advocate has been killed, the evidence of last seen has been collected by the Investigating Officer recovery of daranti used in the commission of the alleged offence has been made at the pointing out of the applicant, in the present case the applicant has been convicted u/s 324, I.P.C., he has been involved in the murder also, in which he was acquitted, the gravity of the offence is too much, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.