Bharat Singh vs State of U.P.

V.D. Chaturvedi, J.—Heard. The applicant Bharat Singh is involved in offences punishable u/s 364A/302/201, I.P.C. Police Station Chaubepur district Kanpur Dehat.

It is alleged that the deceased Sunil worked in a factory at Dadanagar. On 27.6.2005 when he did not come back a report regarding his disappearance was given at police station Chaubepur. After his dead body was recovered, his post-mortem was conducted on 20.10.2006. The police submitted the charge-sheet on the evidence of the deceased''s wife that Sunil was abducted for the ransom and on the evidence of witnesses Sanju, Sanjai and Kailash that Sunil was last seen with the applicant and co-accused and also on the evidence that co-accused confessed before the witnesses Ram Khilawan and Sri Ram that the co-accused and the applicant Bharat had abducted Sunil for ransom but later they committed his murder.

Learned A.G.A. submits the criminal history of 24 cases against the applicant.

The applicant''s counsel requests for bail stating that the evidence of last seen could be collected 22 months after the incident ; that the co-accused Mewa Lal and Dashrath Singh and Sushil Kumar have been granted bail by this Court.

The applicant''s counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court given by another Bench wherein the accused having the criminal history of 56 cases, was released on bail. The said case is in Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P.JT 2007 (1) 680 (All): 2006 (3) ACR 2548.

The applicant''s counsel''s explanation about the last seen evidence is of denial and that the evidence was collected after inordinate delay of 22 months.

The cases of abduction for ransom are different from other cases. The judicial experience tells that in cases of abduction or kidnapping the evidence of last seen is reliable and trustworthy evidence provided the accused fails to explain it properly. Such evidence needs no other evidence to prove the guilt.

The explanation given by the applicant''s counsel that the deceased never went with the deceased, is not convincing. The applicant''s counsel''s arguments that the evidence was received after inordinate delay of 22 months may have some substance but after the cross examination of the witnesses. At this stage it is not so convincing so as to release the applicant on bail.

Regarding the criminal history, the applicant''s counsel contends that the applicant has been acquitted in almost all the cases, except six cases which are still pending.

The criminal history shows that it consists of 3 cases of murder, 14 cases of dacoity, one case of dacoity with murder and six other cases. The registration of 24 cases at different police stations of three different districts. In different years (from 1988 to 2007) indicates that the applicant is unlike the ordinary citizens of neat and clean character. I respectfully disagree with the brother Judge whose ruling is cited before me.

The public at large cannot be thrown at the risk, by admitting the applicant to bail. Further, I am afraid that if the applicant (having criminal history of above noted 24 criminal cases) is released on bail, the prosecution witnesses may be tampered.

Such person cannot be allowed to remain in society.

No case for bail. Rejected.

The criminal history submitted by the A.G.A. is taken on record.

After the disposal of the bail, the applicant''s counsel submits that it would not be possible to convict the accused on the basis of the evidence collected by the I.O.

Any argument after the disposal of the bail is not proper. He may move another bail application, if he desires to argue any thing more.