Santosh Kumar Singh @ Banti Singh vs State of U.P.

Alok K. Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

The case diary available with the learned A.G.A. was also perused on relevant points.

The applicant is involved in Crime No.848 of 2008, under Sections 395, 397, 412, 120B I.P.C. and 3(1) of U.P. Gangster Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda.

According to the prosecution a dacoity was committed by five unknown persons on 01.12.2008 at 5.45 p.m. in the ICICI Main Branch, Gonda. The F.I.R. was lodged by the Branch Manager of the bank on the same day after 45 minutes. In this dacoity an amount of Rs.54,23,338/ was taken away from the counter alongwith mobile phones, one CPU (computer) and one licensed double barrel gun wielded by the guard. In the process injuries were also caused on the face of cashier Chandra Shekhar. Another CPU containing the photographs taken by CCTV was however could not be taken away by the dacoits.

At the outset it may be mentioned that out of the looted cash, an amount of rupees forty four lacs thirty nine thousand and five hundred has been recovered by the police. It also comes out from record that on 29/30.12.2008 after receiving a secret information from the informer the police arrested five persons namely coaccused Umesh Singh, Virendra Pratap Singh alias Veeru, Ratnesh Singh and Samar Singh and Saddu Yadav who committed the actual act of dacoity. These persons were coming in a white Maruti van from Faizabad. From their possession few arms and cartridges and some cash amount was recovered i.e. Rs.4700, 4300, 3200, 1500 and 1300 respectively. Subsequently on their pointing out sumptuous amount was recovered and relevant recovery memos were prepared. For this purpose three police parties had been constituted under the direction of the Superintendent of Police. At the time of arrest some of the bank officials also identified the arrested persons.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in his recovery memo neither any date nor denomination of currency notes have been mentioned whereas in the recovery memo of other coaccused denominations of packed notes and number of new currency notes are also mentioned. He also submitted that no copy of recovery memo was provided to him. In this regard, learned counsel drew the attention of the Court towards the copy of recovery memo of Santosh Singh filed along with the counter affidavit (Anneuxre No. 2). He further submitted that the names of the police officers/officials mentioned in the alleged recovery of coaccused Jagannath Singh are different from the names which are mentioned in respect of the present applicant while recovery is of same date. He also claimed parity with coaccused Jagannath Singh.

In reply to the aforesaid submissions learned A.G.A. showed electrostat copy of the case diary available with him (which was taken on record) and pointed out that in the recovery memo the date and time have been very well mentioned i.e. 30.12.2008 at 4.30 A.M. He also added that the date and time is also mentioned even in the statement of witness Dhananjay Singh (S.I.), contained at page no. 0085653 in the case diary, copy whereof has been filed from the side of the accused Jagannath Singh in Crl. Misc. Case No.3842 (B) of 2009, which has been clubbed with this case and that file is available before this Court. Learned A.G.A. pointed out that the Annexure No. 2 to the counter affidavit filed in this case is not the correct and complete copy of recovery memo of Santosh Kumar Singh @ Banti Singh. He also expressed regret in this regard. In view of this only the electrostat copy of the case diary available with the learned A.G.A. has been taken on record, which also includes the recovery memo of the applicant and on page 0085612 (on the back side) time is mentioned and on page no. 0085613 (on the back side) date is mentioned. It is also mentioned that the copy was also given to the accused. He also clarifies that probably the learned counsel for the applicant of this case has construed the statement of witness Dhananjay Singh (S.I.) filed in the aforesaid Crl. Misc. Case No. 3842 (B) of 2009 (Jagannath Singh Vs. State), to be copy of recovery memo whereas it is only statement of a witness but in that too at least the date 30.12.2008 and time 4:30 A.M. are mentioned as mentioned hereinbefore.

Similarly regarding details of the denominations of packed notes and series of new currency notes learned A.G.A. again referred to the recovery memo and showed that the same have been mentioned. From this applicant a total amount of Rs.1,16,100/ was recovered. Learned A.G.A. further added that recovery memo was read over and family members of the applicant were also informed and its copy was also given to accused as mentioned in the memo.

From the perusal of the material on record and the case diary available with learned A.G.A. the aforesaid submissions made by learned A.G.A. are found to be correct.

In respect of parity learned A.G.A. contended that there is no parity with the coaccused Jagannath Singh from whose possession an amount of Rs.1,10,000/ has been recovered on 30.12.2008. He pointed out that as mentioned in the bail order dated 19.06.2009 of coaccused Jagannath Singh, another coaccused Umesh Singh (who was amongst five persons who had committed dacoity in the Bank and whose photograph were also taken by CCTV) had given certain amount and mobile phone to the aforesaid accused Jagannath Singh with a request to do (his) pairvi in case Umesh Singh is arrested. On the other hand the present applicant was working as an agent in the aforesaid ICICI bank. After his removal in November, 2008 from the job in the very next month i.e. in December, 2008, out of vengeance he connived with the accused persons to commit dacoity in the same Bank. Being a former agent of the bank he was well versed with the internal security management and other important details of the Bank which he leaked out to the coaccused persons and that is why he got a sumptuous amount of rupees four lacs as his share as told by coaccused Virendra Pratap Singh alias Veeru in his confessional statement. At the pointing out of this coaccused the police party reached district Faizabad to arrest the applicant from his house. Then at the pointing out of the applicant himself an amount of Rs.1,16,100/ was recovered on 30.12.2008 at 4.30 A.M. as mentioned above. The applicant has also made the confessional statement regarding his complicity.

In view of the above I do not find any substance in the claim of parity with coaccused Jagannath Singh.

The recovered amount is quite huge and it has also not been claimed by the applicant.

Learned A.G.A. also placed reliance on the case of State of Maharashtra Versus Ritesh reported in (2001) 4 SCC 224 wherein it has been laid down by Hon''ble the Apex Court that High Court should not go into the merits of the case and decide the bail application without affording an opportunity to the prosecution about the noncomplicity of the accused in the crime. On the facts of that case it was held that the High Court was not justified in granting bail by going into the merits of the case. It was further observed that no exceptional ground was made out for departing from the usual procedure of trial, once chargesheet had been filed in the trial court. It is said that in the present case also the chargesheet has been filed.

The bail is vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.

The points pertaining to nature of accusation, danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, character, behaviour and position of the accused, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, I regret in not finding it to be a fit case for granting bail. Hence it is rejected.