Satish alias Pappu Pradhan vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—Prayer for bail in this application u/s 439, Code of Criminal Procedure has been made on behalf of the applicant Satish alias Pappu Pradhan, son of Saroopa Gurjar, in Case Crime No. 128 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 364, 302, 120B and 201, I.P.C., P.S. Agauta district Bulandshahr.

In the intervening night of 8/9.7.2007 murder of three persons, namely Ranveer Singh, Prakash and Budh Prakash, all residents of village Neemchana, district Bulandshahr, was committed. On 9.7.2007 in the morning, a telephonic message was received at P.S. Agauta, whereby it was informed by Guddu, resident of Neemchana, that Bitoras situated outside the village are burning, in which one person is also burning. This information was lodged in G.D. No. 9 on 9.7.2007 at 7.00 a.m. and thereafter S.O. Mukut Singh alongwith other police personnel reached village Neemchana, where Smt. Ramwati wife of Prakash and her son Mukesh told the police that incident had taken place with their family members in their Gher. On getting this information, the police force alongwith Smt. Ramwati and her son Mukesh as well as many villagers, reached the place where Bitoras were burning, in which burning dead body of a person was seen. With the help of villagers, the fire was extinguished and partly dead bodies of two persons were taken out. On seeing those burnt dead bodies, Smt. Ramwati told that the dead bodies are of his husband Prakash and son Rakesh alias Teetu. Smt. Ramwati then got a written report scribed on the spot from Satendra Kumar and handed over the same to S.O.P.S. Agauta. On the basis of that report, an F.I.R. (Annexure-2) was registered at P.S. Agauta on 9.7.2007 at 8.50 a.m. and a case under Sections 364, 302 and 201, I.P.C., was registered at Crime No. 128 of 2007 against (1) Anil Jat, (2) Devendra Singh, (3) Amit, (4) Manoj Gurjar and (5) Satish alias Pappu Pradhan (applicant-herein). The allegations made in the F.I.R. in brief, are that in the intervening night of 8/9.7.2007 at about mid night, the accused persons named above abducted Prakash, Rakesh alias Teetu and Budh Prakash, who have been murdered and the dead body of Prakash and Rakesh have been burnt in the Bitoras, but dead body of Budh Prakash is not traceable.

On the same day at 10.00 a.m., another F.I.R. (Annexure-6) was lodged by Ram Kumar at P.S.B.B. Nagar, (Bulandshahr), where a case u/s 302, I.P.C. was registered at Crime No. 139 of 2007 against unknown person. The allegations made in this F.I.R., in brief, are that on 9.7.2007 at about 7.00 a.m. the complainant Ram Kumar, son of late Sri. Bijendra Singh, resident of village Saidpur, was coming to his house after keeping watch of his tube-well and on reaching Saidpur road, he saw that a dead body of a person was lying on the patri of road, whose murder has been committed by causing him firearm injury. It is also stated in this F.I.R. that when complainant was keeping watch of his tube well, he had heard a sound of fire in the morning at about 5.00 a.m.

On that very day, one more F.I.R. was lodged by Manoj Kumar, son of the deceased Ranveer, at 9.10 a.m. at police station Agauta, where a case u/s 364, I.P.C. was registered at Case Crime No. 128A of 2007 against (1) Anil Jat, (2) Devendra, (3) Amit, (4) Manoj, and (5) Satish alias Pappu Pradhan (applicant herein). The allegations made in this F.I.R., in brief, are that in the intervening night of 8/9.7.2007, the accused persons named above, abducted Ranveer Singh, father of the complainant at about 2.30 a.m.

It is worthwhile to mention that out of the two dead bodies, which were seen burning in the Bitoras on 9.7.2007 in the morning, one dead body was identified by Smt. Ramwati as of her son Rakesh alias Teetu, but during investigation, Rakesh alias Teetu came back alive and this fact has emerged that the second dead body, which was burnt in the Bitoras was of Ranveer Singh and the dead body, which was found lying on Saidpur road, was of Budh Prakash.

I have heard lengthy arguments of senior Advocates, Sri. Satish Trivedi and Sri. V.P. Srivastava, appearing for the applicant, Shachindra Mishra, advocate representing the complainant-Manoj Kumar of Case Crime No. 128-A of 2007 and A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

The first and foremost submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant is that during the course of trial in S.T. No. 1290 of 2007, State v. Anil Jat and Ors. the complainant Smt. Ramwati has been discharged by the prosecution without examination and since other two witnesses namely Manoj Kumar and Gayatri Devi have not identified the applicant at the time of recording their statements in aforesaid session trial, hence the applicant Satish alias Pappu Pradhan deserves to be released on bail, because there is no other evidence to show his complicity in the incident of these three murders. For this submission, my attention was drawn towards copy of the order sheet of aforesaid session trial and statements of witnesses Manoj Kumar and Gayatri Devi (Annexures-2, 3 and 4 to the supplementary-affidavit dated 1.8.2008).

Next submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant was that the co-accused Rakesh alias Teetu has changed the entire story in his statement recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure by the Investigating Officer, and hence on this ground also, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, because the case of the prosecution as set up in the F.I.R. lodged by Smt. Ramwati is falsified. The contention of learned Counsel was that allegation in the F.I.R. lodged by Smt. Ramwati was that the deceased Prakash and Budh Prakash were abducted by the accused persons from their gher and thereafter their murder was committed, but on the basis of the statement of the co-accused Rakesh alias Teetu, the entire story has been changed.

It was also submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that dead body of the deceased Budh Prakash was found lying at some other place, about which the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person by one Ram Kumar.

It was further submitted by learned Counsel that the applicant is languishing in jail for more than two years and hence on the basis of long incarceration in jail, he is entitled to be released on bail now, because due to delay in trial, his fundamental right of speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is being violated.

The bail application was vehemently opposed by learned Counsel for the complainant Manoj Kumar and A.G.A. contending that the complicity of the applicant Satish alias Pappu Pradhan in the incident of committing murder of three persons has been fully established on the basis of the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure and since some witnesses have not yet been examined in trial court, hence in this heinous crime of triple murder, the applicant, who has long criminal history, should not be granted bail. It was also submitted by learned Counsel for the complainant that bail of co-accused Amit has been rejected by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.3.2008 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5847 of 2008, and hence on this ground also, the applicant does not deserve bail.

It was also submitted by learned Counsel for the complainant that during the course of trial, the co-accused Anil Jat has fled away from custody at the time when he was brought to Bulandshahr Court from jail on 26.6.2009 and hence on this ground also, the applicant should not be granted bail, because after coming out from jail, the accused persons would tamper the evidence by intimidating the witnesses. For this submission my attention was drawn towards the F.I.R. (Annexure-CA-3 to the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 29.7.2009), which was lodged by S.I. Ranveer Sharma on 26.6.2009 at police station Kotwali Nagar, Bulandshahr alleging therein that the accused Anil alias Punjabi, who was brought to Court from jail in connection with a case at Case Crime No. 64 of 1996 u/s 392/411, I.P.C. of police station Aurangabad, has fled away from custody at about 2.55 p.m.

It was further submitted by learned Counsel for the complainant that the witnesses Manoj Kumar and Gayatri Devi, have also named the applicant Satish alias Pappu Pradhan in their statements (Annexures-3 and 4 to supplementary affidavit dated 1.8.2008), but subsequently due to terror and fear of the accused persons, they declined to identify the applicant in court and since the evidentiary value of the statements of these witnesses is to be considered by the trial court, hence this Court would not be justified to release the applicant making assessment of the evidentiary value of the statements of these witnesses.

It was also submitted by learned Counsel for the complainant and A.G.A. that statement of Rakesh alias Teetu is not material, because he was co-accused at the time of recording his statement by the Investigating Officer and hence the alleged confession made by him before police is not admissible in evidence, and hence on the basis of the statement of co-accused Rakesh alias Teetu, the case of prosecution would not be materially affected.

Next submission made by learned Counsel for the complainant was that Smt. Kusum, wife of the deceased Budh Prakash has been examined in S.T. No. 1290 of 2007 and in her statement (Annexure-CA-1 to the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 19.7.2009), she has fully supported the case of the prosecution regarding abduction of her husband Budh Prakash by the accused persons including the applicant Satish alias Pappu Pradhan.

I have carefully gone through the entire case diary and other material on record. So far as the order dated 14.3.2008 passed by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5847 of 2008, whereby the bail application of co-accused Amit has been rejected, is concerned, it is suffice to say that there is no parity in the matter of rejection of bail and bail of similarly placed co-accused cannot be rejected merely because the bail of other accused has been rejected by another Bench/Judge. Reference in this regard may be made to Sobha Ram v. State of U.P.(XXIX)1992 ACC 59 : 1992 ACR 241.

Smt. Ramwati had lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of information given to her by her son Mukesh, in whose presence, his father and brother are said to have been abducted by the accused persons including the applicant Satish alias Pappu Pradhan. Mukesh has not yet been examined in trial court in S.T. No. 1290 of 2007. Statements of the witnesses Dharamveer Singh and Devendra Singh were recorded during investigation, but they also have not yet been examined in trial court. Therefore, having regard to all these facts and keeping in view the aforesaid submissions made by learned Counsel for the complainant and A.G.A., but without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, in this heinous crime of triple murder, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.

In my considered opinion, on the basis of long incarceration in jail also, the applicant cannot be released on bail. In this context, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and Ors. (LVVIII)2008 ACC 115 : 2008 (3) ACR 3216 (SC), in which the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per-se illegal. If the accused has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the bail application is hereby rejected.

The trial court concerned is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant and other accused in S.T. No. 1290 of 2007 within a period of six months from the date of receiving the copy of this order, avoiding unnecessary adjournments and applying the provisions of Section 309, Code of Criminal Procedure If the escaped accused Anil Jat has not yet been arrested, then his case may be separated and sincere efforts be made to conclude the trial of other accused persons within the aforesaid period.

S.S.P. Bulandshahr is also directed to depute special messenger to procure the attendance of the witnesses, after obtaining their summons from the trial court concerned and it must be ensured that all the rest witnesses are produced in court for evidence in S.T. No. 1290 of 2007, State v. Anil Jat and Ors. without causing any delay.

The Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr will also ensure that trial of the accused persons in aforesaid sessions trial is concluded within aforesaid period.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the trial court concerned, Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr and S.S.P. Bulandshahr for necessary action.