Devanand Maurya vs State of U.P.

Vinod Prasad, J.—The applicant Devanand Maurya has sought his release on bail in Crime No. 76 of 2006, u/s 302, I.P.C., P.S. Bardah, district Azamgarh through this application.

The brief allegations against the applicant as is culled out from the F.I.R. are that Shiv Kumar Sahu informant lodged the F.I.R. on 30.3.2006 at 11.30 a.m. against unknown persons in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on that day at 11.00 a.m. u/s 302, I.P.C. at P.S. Bardah, district Azamgarh which was registered as Crime No. 76 of 2006. The said F.I.R. is related with the murder of Jitendra Kumar Sahu a village Pradhan who was also District President of Vaypaar Sabha of Samajvadi Party. The deceased Jitendra Kumar Sahu had left the house at 9.00 a.m. that day along with one of his companion, at 11.00 a.m. The informant had received the information that he had been shot dead. The registration of the F.I.R. succeeded in investigation into the offence and even in Section 161, Cr. P.C. statement the informant did not name anybody as an accused. However, in that statement he named Arvind Kumar Maurya as the person who had accompanied the deceased. The informant however, had shown his apprehension on Devanand Maurya and Vijay Maurya because the deceased had exchanged blows with aforesaid two persons. The postmortem report of the deceased, dated 30.3.2006, indicated that he had sustained two firearms wound of entries and the cause of his death was haemorrhage and shocked due to ante mortem injuries. The investigation further revealed that the name of the applicant was spelt out by Arvind Kumar Maurya who had anointed the role to Vijay Maurya and Devanand Maurya (present applicant) as the main assailants who had shot dead the deceased from their country-made pistol of twelve bore.

On these facts the applicant has prayed for his release on bail.

I have heard Sri V. P. Srivastava assisted by Sri S. K. Dubey, learned Counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S. K. Mishra learned Counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. in opposition.

It is submitted by Sri V. P. Srivastava learned senior counsel for the applicant that in this case the whole prosecution version is cooked up. The alleged informant Arvind Kumar Maurya had purchased the stamp paper on 28.3.2006 and he had filed an affidavit before Circle Officer, Lalganj, Azamgarh wherein he has mentioned that on 30.3.2006 a Hero Honda Motorcycle of red colour but without number plate came from behind and committed the murder of Jitendra Sahu. He contended that the stamp paper was purchased on 28.3.2006 by the said witness and the contents of the affidavit mentions the fact regarding 30.3.2006. He submitted that the occurrence had taken place on 30.3.2006 then how the stamp paper was purchased on 28.3.2006 is something which cannot be reconciled. He further submitted that the said affidavit was got sweared on 4.4.20006 before the Notary S. N. Singh after a gap of four days from the date of the incident. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the informant is not an eyewitness of the incident and the name of Arvind Maurya does not find mention in the F.I.R. He further submitted that according to the prosecution case 161, Cr. P.C. statement of Arvind Kumar Maurya is alleged to have been recorded on 31.3.2006 then what was the necessity of his filing an affidavit before the Circle Officer, Lalganj. This is a very negative circumstance against the prosecution. He further contended that the said affidavit dated 4.4.2006 does not make any reference of recording of 161, Cr: P.C. statement by the aforesaid witness. In totality learned Counsel for the applicant contended that Arvind Kumar Maurya, alleged eye-witness, is a got up witness and his 161, Cr. P.C. statement was cooked up by the Investigating Officer and there is no other evidence against the applicant and the whole prosecution case against the applicant is cooked up and manufactured.

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand contended that the applicant is one of the main shooter and Arvind Kumar Maurya who had accompanied the deceased is an eye-witness of the incident. He further contended that it is a day light incident and the postmortem report is consistent with the prosecution version. He further contended that there was no reason to falsely implicate the applicant.

I have considered the submission raised by both the sides. In my view, since Arvind Kumar Maurya the alleged eyewitness is not named in the F.I.R. and in his affidavit which was filed belatedly on 4.4.2006 after five days he does not make any mention regarding the recording of his statement u/s 161, Cr. P.C. on 31.3.2006 and also keeping in view the fact that if the statement of Arvind Kumar Maurya was recorded on 31.3.2006 there was no necessity for him to file an affidavit on 4.4.2006 on a stamp paper which was purchased by him on 28.3.2006 two days prior to the incident and that in the affidavit he had not shown any apprehension regarding any threat etc. being administered to him and that the name of the applicant surfaced after four days of the incident that I consider it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

Let the applicant Devanand Maurya be released on bail in Case Crime No. 76 of 2006, u/s 302, I.P.C., P.S. Bardah, district Azamgarh on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Azamgarh.