Kalyan Singh vs State of U.P.

Vinod Prasad, J.—This bail application has been filed by the applicant in Crime No. 87 of 2005, u/s 364A/302/201, I.P.C., police station Rail Bazaar, district Kanpur Nagar.

The prosecution case in nutshell is that deceased Devendra alias Rinku Tiwari was a J.E. in Hutch Company and he used to live alongwith his Mausa Awadesh Kumar Tripathi resident of R.P.F. Railway Colony Quarter No. 254/R Jharkathi. On 23.2.2005, the deceased Devendra alias Rinku Tiwari returned to his house at 5.30 p.m. and soon thereafter at 6.00 p.m. he went alongwith Ajab Singh Gaurh alias Rajjan Singh and his cousin brother Kalyan Singh son of Jaahar Singh (present applicant) on his Hero Honda Motorcycle No. U.P. 78-AU-2024. Jaswant Kumar Shukla, Girja Shanker Shukla and family members of informant had seen the deceased going alongwith the said two persons. The deceased did not return. Hence, he was searched by the family members but could not be traced out. Consequently, the informant who was in Mughalsarai was informed on telephone. Informant Awadesh Kumar Tripathi tried to contact the deceased Devendra alias Rinku Tiwari on his Hutch Mobile phone but all in vain. On 25.2.2005, the informant after taking leave, came to Kanpur and he then informed the father of the Rinku Tiwari. The police was also informed about the elopement of Rinku Tiwari and everybody started searching for him. Being satisfied that he was murdered by the aforesaid two persons Ajab Singh Gaur alias Rajjan Singh and Kalyan Singh (present applicant) that a F.I.R. was lodged by the informant at police station Rail Bazar Kanpur Nagar on 14.3.2005 at 10.00 a.m. regarding the said incident after about twenty days. Subsequent, the investigation revealed that it was the present applicant who had committed the murder of the deceased and had disposed of his body. During the investigation the motorcycle, some papers and the driving licence of the deceased were recovered from the house of the present applicant. On these facts the applicant has applied for his bail.

I have heard Sri K. P. Shukla assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Singh advocate in support of this bail application and the learned A.G.A. in opposition.

Sri K. P. Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicant contended that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness account of the said incident. He further contended that another co-accused Ajab Singh alias Rajjan Singh has been granted bail by this Court vide Bail Application No. 14516 of 2005 by Hon''ble C. P. Mishra, J., on 7.12.2005 alongwith the supplementary-affidavit, he has quoted the aforesaid order in paragraph 4 thereof. He further contended that there was absolutely no motive for committing the murder of the deceased by the applicant and that the F.I.R. is delayed and has been lodged after due consultation and deliberation after more than 20 days. He further submitted that the arrest of the applicant is doubtful and the F.I.R. was lodged not by the parents of the deceased but by a distant relative. He further contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated at the behest of one person namely Pradhan.

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand contended that in this case the F.I.R. is not delayed at all as the deceased was being searched and subsequently when he was not traced out, then the F.I.R. was lodged. He further contended that after the incident the applicant had eloped and subsequently the motorcycle, driving licence and other papers belonging to the deceased were recovered from the house of the applicant at his pointing out. He further submitted that the applicant had taken the deceased alongwith him on a motorcycle and that is the last seen evidence against the applicant and thereafter the deceased was not traced out. He, therefore, contended that chain of circumstances of the prosecution is complete and it was the applicant who had committed the murder of the deceased. He further contended that the co-accused Ajay Singh has been granted bail since his case was different from the case of the present applicant as no recovery was made from his possession.

I have considered the contentions raised by both the sides. No doubt it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness account of the incident but in this case the deceased was taken away by the applicant on his Hero Honda motorcycle, which had been subsequently recovered at the instance of the present applicant from his house alongwith licence and other papers belonging to the deceased. The applicant had not been able to explain at all as to what happened of the deceased after he had taken him away and how he came into the possession of his motorcycle and other papers.

In this view of the matter, since the applicant has failed to explain the elopement of the deceased, I am not inclined to grant him bail.

Hence, the bail prayer of the applicant is declined. The bail application stands rejected.