Sita Ram vs State of U.P.

Hon''ble S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri G.S. Hajela, Learned Counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 15.7.2011 at 2.30 p.m. and the FIR was lodged at P.S. Madnapur, District- Shajahanpur on the same day at 3.50 p.m. The deceased and all the five accused named in the FIR, are residents of Village- Chiti, P.S. Madnapur whereas first informant and the sole eye witness- Naresh Pal Singh is resident of Village- Ali Akbarpur @ Nawada, P.S. Jaitipur, which is at a distance of 20-25 kms from the village of the deceased and the applicant had no reason to be present at the time of incident.

It was further submitted that as per the prosecution case, on the date of incident, the deceased Sobran son of brother in-law of the first informant and accused Sonpal came to the house of first informant from Delhi and after breakfast, both of them alongwith the first informant came to village Chiti by a moter-cycle. After sometime, the co-accused Dadu Ram Jatav came to the house of the deceased and took away the deceased Sobran and Sonpal with him. All the three went by a moter-cycle. When Sobran did not return for a considerable time, the first informant being worried, went to look for Sobran and at 2.30 p.m. found that near the house of Gavde Nai, Balram, Sitaram and Shiv Ram fired indiscriminately at Sobran causing his death and Sonpal and Dadu cooperated with them. The accused persons dragged the dead body towards the west and threw it in a water pit.

The contention is not a single witness of village- chiti has come forward to give evidence and when first informant went to the police station to lodge FIR, according to the G.D. entry, he was accompanied by persons of area of P.S. Jaitipur only. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even the family members of the deceased, were neither made witnesses nor they were interrogated by the Investigating Officer, which clearly falsifies the case set up by the first informant.

It was further submitted that on 15.7.2011, there was a hearing in Criminal Case No. 3561 of 2010, State Vs. Sitaram & others, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Madnapur pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Tilhar, District- Shahjahanpur and on that date, the applicant attended the Court and he came to know about the incident only after his return to the village. It was further submitted that the deceased was a criminal and had many enemies.

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a day light incident. The applicant is named in the FIR. Specific role has been assigned to him and the post-mortem report supports the prosecution case.

Surprisingly, none of the family members of the deceased nor any resident of village Chiti has come forward to be a witness of the incident nor any such person was interrogated by the Investigating Officer. The first informant is not a resident of Village- Chiti but resides in a different village in a different police station area at a distance of 20 to 25 kms.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Let the applicant Sita Ram involved in Case Crime No. 168 of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, P.S. Madnapur, District- Shahjahanpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

(a) The applicant shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by him;

(b) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.