Ranga vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—By means of this application u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ''the Cr.P.C.''), prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the applicant-accused Ranga S/o late Sri. Krishna Yadav in Case Crime No. 1543 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 34 and 120B, I.P.C. and Section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act of P.S. Kavi Nagar, district Ghaziabad.

An F.I.R. (Annexure-1) was lodged by Malkhan Singh S/o Atar Singh at P.S. Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad on 29.11.2008 at 3.10 p.m. The allegations made in the F.I.R., in brief, are that after attending sagai ceremony in village Sadarpur on 29.11.2008, Satish and Dharmendra (both deceased) and Hariom (injured) were coming in Inova Car No. U.P. 14 Y-7000. They were being followed by the complainant Malkhan Singh, his cousin brothers Sundar, Santosh and Gyanendra by another vehicle No. U.P. 14 AH-3132. When at about 1.30 p.m., the vehicles reached on the road outside the village, the accused Ashok Yadav, Rakesh Yadav, Shobha Ram, Rukam Kesh and Yogesh all sons of Jai Prakash Yadav, Vishal and Ranga both sons of Krishna Yadav, Harsh alias Bosh S/o Shobha Ram, Ajay and Amit Yadav sons of Mahendra Yadav came out from their vehicles having weapons in their hands and they started indiscriminate firing on the Inova vehicle. Thereafter, accused persons fled away in their vehicles making fires in the air. When the complainant Malkhan Singh and his companions reached near Inova vehicle, they saw that Satish and Dharmendra had died and Hari Om was seriously injured.

I have heard Sri. Satish Trivedi and Sri Viresh Mishra, learned senior Counsel, assisted by Sri. Kapil Tyagi, advocate appearing for the applicant, Sri. V.P. Srivastava, learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri. A.C. Srivastava, advocate appearing for the complainant, A.G.A. Sri J.P. Singh for the State and also perused the case diary and other material on record.

The first and foremost submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant was that the incident of committing the murder of Satish and Dharmendra and causing injuries to Hariom is said to have occurred at about 1.30 p.m. on 29.11.2008 in Ghaziabad district, whereas the applicant Ranga was sent to jail on that date by the police of P.S. Sarai Khwaja, Faridabad (Haryana) in connection with an offence punishable u/s 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act relating to Case Crime No. 489 of 2008 and hence on this ground alone, the applicant deserves bail. For this submission, my attention was drawn towards the papers, which have been filed as Annexure-12 with the bail application. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant was that there was election of Legislative Assembly in Delhi on 29.11.2008 and to serve wine to the voters to cast votes to their candidate, the applicant Ranga alongwith Rukam Kesh and Yogesh Kumar had purchased 24 bottles of English wine from Faridabad (Haryana), where the wine shops were opened and when they were coming to Delhi by Alto Car No. U.P. 16 S/6453 carrying the wine, they were apprehended by the police of P.S. Saraikhwaja, Faridabad on 28.11.2008 and their wine bottles and vehicle were seized and a case u/s 61/1/14 Punjab Excise Act was registered against them on 28.11.2008 at 10.05 p.m. at P.S. Saraikhwaja, Faridabad, where they were locked in the lock-up and on 29.11.2009 they were sent to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, who remanded them to judicial custody, in which they remained till 2.12.2008 and were released on being bailed out vide order dated 2.12.2008, passed by Smt. Shashi Bala Chauhan (S.B. Chauhan) Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad. For this submission, my attention was drawn towards the papers which have been filed with rejoinder-affidavit dated 8.12.2009.

Next submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant was that one Rakesh Yadav was also named in the F.I.R. and in the statement of complainant Malkhan Singh recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure he was named, but on the basis of the statements made by eye-witnesses and injured Hariom, the complicity of Rakesh Yadav in the alleged incident has been found false and accepting his plea of alibi, the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad has granted bail to him vide order dated 8.6.2009 and hence on this ground also, the applicant should be released on bail, because on this ground, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful. For this submission, my attention was drawn towards the bail order dated 8.6.2009 (Annexure-14 to the bail application).

It was further submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. of this case is ante-timed and was not in existence at the time of conducting inquest proceedings on the dead bodies. In this context, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in the inquest report of deceased Satish Yadav, name of his father has been shown Jai Prakash Yadav, whereas Satish Yadav is the son of Atar Singh as mentioned in the F.I.R. (Annexure-1). For this submission, my attention was drawn towards copy of the inquest report of deceased Satish Yadav (Annexure-RA-2 to the rejoinder-affidavit dated 8.12.2009), in which Satish Yadav has been shown as the son of Jai Prakash Yadav. The contention of the learned Counsel was that had the copy of F.I.R. been available at the time of inquest proceedings, then father''s name of Satish Yadav would have been shown as Atar Singh and not Jai Prakash Yadav, as has been shown in the inquest report. It was also submitted in this context that G.D. No. of registration of the case is not mentioned in the inquest report and on 2nd page, space is left blank to fill up G.D. number, which has not yet been filled up. For this submission, my attention was drawn towards page No. 2 of inquest reports of deceased Satish Yadav and Dharmendra Yadav (Annexure-RA-2 to the rejoinder-affidavit dated 8.12.2009), in which space has been left to fill up G.D. number.

Next submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant was that ten persons are said to have fired indiscriminately and since no specific weapon has been assigned to the applicant Ranga, hence on this ground also, he should be released on bail, because it cannot be said that fatal injuries were caused by the applicant. It was also submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that all the ante-mortem injuries of both the deceased can be caused by two or three weapons and on this ground also, false implication of some accused persons is established.

On the contrary, the bail application was vehemently opposed by learned Counsel for the complainant and A.G.A. contending that false plea of alibi has been set up by the applicant and hence in this heinous crime of committing murder of two persons and causing injuries to another person in broad day light, the applicant should not be released on bail.

It was also submitted by learned Counsel for the complainant and A.G.A. that non-bailable warrants have been obtained from the Court of C.J.M., Ghaziabad against the police officials of P.S. Saraikhwaja, Faridabad for making false entries in police record with a view to save the applicant and other accused persons from present case. For this submission, my attention was drawn towards the counter-affidavit filed by the State. It was submitted in this context by learned Counsel for the applicant that no action so far has been taken against the police officials of P.S. Saraikhwaja, Faridabad by higher authorities and no charge-sheet has been submitted against them so far and hence, merely on the basis of obtaining non-bailable warrants from the Court of C.J.M., Ghaziabad against the police officials of P.S. Saraikhwaja, Faridabad, the plea of alibi of the applicant cannot be said to be false, because there is sufficient evidence to show that the applicant was in the lock-up of P.S. Saraikhwaja, Faridabad, in Case Crime No. 489 of 2008, u/s 61/1/14, Punjab Excise Act and he was remanded to judicial custody on 29.11.2008 after his medical examination.

Regarding the arrest of the applicant by the police of P.S. Saraikhwaja, Faridabad, it was further submitted by learned Counsel for the complainant and A.G.A. that address of Anupam Garden Sainik Farm, New Delhi has been given in the remand sheet of P.S. Saraikhwaja, whereas the applicant is resident of Ghaziabad (U.P.) and hence on this ground, it can be said that applicant was not apprehended by the police of P.S. Saraikhwaja as alleged in the bail application. On this point, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that applicant resides in Anupam Garden, New Delhi also. For this submission, my attention was drawn towards copy of the driving licence of the applicant Ranga Yadav (Annexure-RA-5 to the rejoinder-affidavit dated 8.12.2009), in which address of Ranga Yadav has been shown A159, Anupam Garden Sainik Farm, New Delhi.

It was also submitted by learned A.G.A. that time of arrest has not been shown in the F.I.R., which was lodged at P.S. Saraikhwaja, Faridabad and on this ground also, it can be said that false papers were got prepared by the applicant to set up the plea of alibi. In this regard, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that computerised F.I.R. was prepared at P.S. Saraikhwaja on 28.11.2008 at 22.05 hours impleading the applicant Ranga and two other persons, namely Rukamkesh and Yogesh Kumar as accused and this F.I.R. cannot be said to be fabricated merely because the time of arrest has not been shown therein.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. There is prima facie evidence to show that the applicant Ranga was remanded to judicial custody on 29.11.2008 by Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad in Case Crime No. 489 of 2008, u/s 61/1/14, Punjab Excise Act of P.S. Saraikhwaja, Faridabad. Paper No. 41 of rejoinder-affidavit dated 8.12.2009 is the copy of the order dated 29.11.2008, passed by Smt. Sashi Bala Chauhan (S. B. Chauhan) Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad remanding the applicant and other co-accused to judicial custody till 13.12.2008, in Case Crime No. 489 of 2008, u/s 61/1/14, Punjab Excise Act of P.S. Saraikhwaja, Faridabad. Paper Nos. 50 to 52 of this rejoinder-affidavit is the report of P.S. Saraikhwaja seeking remand of Ranga and co-accused Rukamkesh and Yogesh Kumar. Paper No. 52 bears the signature of Ranga. Paper No. 17 of the rejoinder-affidavit dated 5.12.2009 is the copy of application submitted by the police of P.S. Saraikhwaja to Medical Officer P.H.C. Palla, Faridabad for getting the accused Ranga medically examined. This paper also bears the signature of Ranga (applicant herein). On this medical examination on 29.11.2008, no fresh external mark of any injury was found on his entire body. Paper No. 19 to this rejoinder-affidavit is the copy of F.I.R., which was registered at P.S. Saraikhwaja, Faridabad on 28.11.2008 at 22.05 hours against Rukamkesh, Yogesh Kumar and Ranga, S/o. Sri Krishna (applicant herein) alleging that the accused persons were apprehended carrying 24 bottles of English wine in Alto Car No. U.P. 16-S/6453. All the three accused are shown to have been arrested by the police of P.S. Saraikhwaja and bottles of wine and vehicle were also seized. Paper No. 54 of the rejoinder-affidavit dated 8.12.2009, is the copy of the order dated 2.12.2008, which shows that the accused Rukamkesh, Yogesh Kumar and Ranga were granted bail by Smt. S.B. Chauhan Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad and after furnishing bail bonds, they were released from jail. This order was passed in Case Crime No. 489 of 2008, in which the accused Ranga and two other accused were confined in jail in connection with the case registered at P.S. Saraikhwaja on 28.11.2008. Therefore, taking all these papers into consideration and keeping in view aforesaid submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, but without expressing any opinion about merit, the applicant may be released on bail.

Let the applicant Ranga S/o Sri. Krishna be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1543 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 34 and 120B, I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Kavin Nagar, district Ghaziabad on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 50,000 and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned and executing an undertaking with following conditions:

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating the witnesses.

(2) He shall co-operate with speedy trial.

(3) He shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

On violation of any of aforesaid conditions, the prosecution would be at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail.