Bans Narain Singh vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Bans Narain Singh with a prayer that he any be released on bail in Case Crime No. 88 of 2005, under Section 364 I.P.C., P.S. Mughalsarai, District Chandauli.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Smt. Shanti Devi, the mother of the deceased and the step mother of the applicant at Police Station Mughalsarai on 1342005 at 3.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 742005 at about 6.30 p.m. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant, coaccused Anil Singh, and co accused Rakesh Gupta alleging therein that Suraj Singh Chauhan, the father of the deceased has performed two marriages, he was married with late Smt. Ganga Devi, the mother of the applicant and first informant Smt. Shanti Devi, the mother of the deceased. His first wife Smt. Ganga Devi gave birth to five sons and two daughters and the first informant gave birth to the deceased Krishna Singh Chauhan and three daughters. The husband of the first informant was having huge property. There was a dispute between the sons of the first wife and the son of second wife because the sons of the first wife including the applicant wanted to usurp the property of the deceased by committing. On 742005 at about 6.30 p.m. the applicant, his son, coaccused Anil Singh and his servant Rakesh Gupta pursuaded deceased and taken away to him from his wood stall after its inauguration. When they left the shop, the deceased was driving his motorcycle and the applicant was its pillion rider which was followed by Maruti Zen car in which coaccused Anil Singh and coaccused Rakesh Kumar Gupta was sitting. After inauguration of the newly opened wood stall, one Girjesh Yadav @ Rajeev Yadav the servant of the deceased had also gone to his village who came back on 1342005 and disclosed the fact that the deceased was taken away by the applicant and other coaccused persons. At that time, they were saying that the applicant was alone of his mother but the applicant was having many brothers and were saving the deceased to dispose of same property and the money obtained shall be divided into two equal shares and they had taken the deceased to finalise the deed on that date but first informant was having a reasonable apprehension that the deceased was abducted by the applicant and other coaccused persons for purposes of murder also but to misguide the first informant and others a missing report was scribed by coaccused Anil Singh on 842005 and the signature of the first informant was obtained so that a suspicion may not be casted upon the applicant and other coaccused persons. During investigation the applicant accused Anil Singh and coaccused Rakesh Gupta were by the police on 1442005. The applicant and other accused persons confessed before the police that the deceased was abducted by their on 742005 at about 6.30 p.m. and thrown in the Ganga river at about 7.30 p.m. and his: motorcycle was kept en vehicle stand and its key was thrown by the applicant in the Ganga river from its bridge and they assured the police to make recovery of the same. At their pointing out the key of the motorcycle of the deceased was recovered from Ganga river. Thereafter the motorcycle of the deceased was also recovered from the vehicle stand. The recovery has been supported by the statements of the witnesses. During investigation the statement of Girjesh Yadav @ Rajiv Yadav has been recorded by the I.O., who has supported the prosecution story. Thereafter the statements of the applicant and coaccused Anil Singh and Rakesh Gupta were recorded. The statement @ Kiran Singh, wife of the deceased has also been recorded, who has supported the prosecution story. The statement of witness Vijay Kunwar, the servant of the Hotel Saraswati has been recorded by the I.O. on 3042005. He stated that on 742005 at about 7.15 p.m., the deceased alongwith applicant came to the Hotel on a motorcycle and other coaccused Anil Singh and Rakesh Gupta came there on a Zen car at about 9 or 9.30 p.m., he saw that the motor cycled of the deceased and car was not in the Hotel. He stated that the applicant and other coaccused persons alongwith deceased had gone from that Hotel. Thereafter the witness Shambhu Nath Tiwari stated that he saw the deceased in the company of the applicant and coaccused Anil Singh and Rakesh Gupta who were sitting in Cualis Car and Nitin Tandon @ Raju stated that the coaccused Babban Singh and coaccused Amit Singh made the confessional statements before him. The statements of Joginder Nishad and Sukkhu (both were Gorakhors) were recorded by I.O. on 2562005 who stated that the applicant and coaccused Anil Singh and Rakesh Gupta made a confessional statements in their presence before the police and at their pointing out they tried to search out the deadbody of the deceased from the river but the key of the motorcycle was recovered by them. The statement was given by the Gorakhor Sukkhuramji, Mahan Nishad and Bharat Nishad. The I.O. recorded the statement of Rakesh Tiwari on 2662005 who stated that on 742005 he had a telephonic talk with the deceased, who stated that the applicant did not want to give his share in the property and he was celled at the Hotel by them. The deceased went there and he was asked by the coaccused Rakesh Gupta and Anil Singh that due to your assistance he was receiving the wood having a valuation of Rs. 1,50,000/ but his real brothers were useless and he was asked to sell the land of the village and the amount of money receives shall be divided into two equal shares and in the present case the deceased has not been recovered alive or dead.

Heard Sri V.C. Tiwari, Senior Advocate, assisted by S/sri Manish Tiwary and A.K. Awasthi and Ram; Shiromani Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case the F.I.R. is too much delayed and there is no plausible explanation of such delay. The F.I.R. of missing was scribed by Anil Singh, son of the deceased and there was no dispute of applicant and the deceased and there had been no litigation there is no direct eyewitness account to show that the deceased was murdered by the applicant and other coaccused persons, the present case is based on circumstantial evidence. The recovery of the key of the motorcycle from the Ganga river and the recovery of the motorcycle of the deceased from the vehicle stand has been shown by the police, it was concocted story and during investigation also the only evidence of last seen has been collected by the I.O. There is no allegation that the applicant had used any force in commission of the alleged offence and the applicant is an old man and there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses recorded by the I.O. which show that they were not reliable witnesses and due to death of the deceased also the applicant was not to gain any property of the deceased, the chain of the circumstances is not complete. In case the applicant: is released on bail, he shall not tamper with the evidence. He is in jail since 1442005.

In reply of the above contentions, the leaned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant submit that the applicant is step brother of the deceased, he was having a strong motive to commit the murder of the deceased he has made a confessional statement and at the pointing out of the applicant and other coaccused persons, the key of motorcycle of the deceased was recovered from Ganga river. The applicant was seen in the company of the deceased by independent witness. He was seen in the company of the deceased in the hotel and in the ualis vehicle. There sufficient material collected by the I.O. against the applicant to show his involvement, the chain of tie circumstances is the is complete. The coaccused Rakesh Gupta, the servant of the applicant has been released on bail by this Court on the 25112005 on Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 14559 of 2005 and the applicant is having criminal antecedents. He was involved in case Crime No. 333 of 2996, under Sections 364, 506, 120B I.P.C, P.S. Mughalsarai, District Chandauli, Case Crime No. 142 of 2005,under Sections 364, 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Chandauli, district Chandauli, Case Crime No. 84 of 2005, under Sections 384, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Mughalsarai, District Chandauli and Case Crime No. 95 of 2005,under Sections 3(1) U.P. Gangster Mughalsarai, District Chandauli. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. Therefore, he may not be released on bail.

Considering facts, circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence which is too much, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant, considering the criminal background of the applicant 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.