Snodh vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Snodh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 228 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 120B, I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act P.S. Kotwali Nagar district Etah.

The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Kali Charan on 1242006 at about 3.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 1242006 at about 2.45 p.m. at Kutchery Road, near the house of exM.P. Sri Kailash Yadav, the distance of the police station was about 1 k.m. from the alleged place of occurrence. According to the F.I.R. The alleged offence has been committed by seven persons in which four persons were named in the F.I.R. and three persons were unknown. It is alleged that the deceased Bhupendra Singh, real brother of the first informant, had contested the election of Block Pramukh in the year 2006 against the coaccused Wazir Singh in which the deceased Bhupendra Singh was declared elected, on the day of the declaration of the election, the coaccused Wazir Singh had extended threat that the deceased would not be permitted to do the work of Block Pramukh even for a period of two months. The coaccused Wazir Singh is a known criminal. About 10 days prior the alleged accident, he had surrendered in the Court and was sent to Jail, when he was going to the Court he told his companions namely coaccused Awadhesh Thekedar and three other unknown persons to eliminate the Block Pramukh and in the process of elimination coaccused Awadhes Thekadar his son coaccused Ranvir and his nephew coaccused Ashish would be helpful. This conversation was heard by Rakesh who conveyed the same to the first informant. The first informant was not expecting that the same conversation was in respect of the murder of his brother Bhupendra Singh. On 1242006 the first informant and his brother, deceased Bhupendra Singh and the deceased Prem Pal Singh alias Pappu, Kamal Kishore, Subodh and Rakesh had gone to the residence of Sri Kailash Yadav, exM.P. at about 2.45 p.m. They came out from the house of Sri Kailash Yadav, the deceased Prem Singh alias Pappu, deceased Bhupendra Singh, Subodh and Kamal Kishore proceeded towards Kutchery in a vehicle and the first informant was starting his motor cycle then at the exhortation of the coaccused Awadhesh Thekedar coaccused Anurag, coaccused Ashish alias Rinkoo and three other unknown miscreants discharged shots indiscriminately towards the deceased Bhupendra Singh and the deceased Prem Pal alias Pappu who was driving the vehicle. At the shouting of the first informant, all the miscreants fled away from the alleged place of occurrence by three motor cycles which were already parked there in a starting condition, then Rakesh disclosed that all the three unknown miscreants were asked by the coaccused Wazir Singh to eliminate the Block Pramukh. The deceased Bhupendra Singh, and deceased Prem Pal Singh alias Pappu were taken to the District Hospital Etah by the first informant where they were declared dead by the doctors. It is further alleged that in the said firing one other person had also become injured who had disclosed his name as Pawan, due to this incident a panic was created, the shutters of the shops were downed, the doors of the house were closed and passerby ran away to save their lives, leaving their shoes and Chappals. The deceased were murdered in furtherance of the conspiracy hatched by the co accused Wazir Singh, exBlock Pramukh, Sheetalpur.

According to the postmortem examination, the deceased Bhupendra Singh had sustained 12 antemortem injuries in which the injury Nos. 1 to 6 were firearm wounds of injury and injury Nos. 7 to 12 were firearm wounds of exit. All the deceased Prem Pal alias Pappu had sustained three gun shot wounds of entry and three gun shot wounds of exit. The injured Pawan had sustained one firearm wound of entry but during investigation the name of the applicant has been disclosed by the first informant Kali Charan on 2042006 by stating that the applicant and other coaccused persons were having motor cycles, they were having some conversations near the furniture shop. The person who had committed the murder of the deceased fled away from three motor cycles including the applicant, which were kept in a start condition. The coaccused Anil Kumar and other were apprehended by the police in a police encounter on 152006. The statement of Anil Yadav was recorded by the I.O. who made confessional statement. He had also stated that the office of the coaccused Awadhesh Thekedar was near the residence of Sri Kailash Yadav ex M.P. where the deceased Bhupendra occasionally visiting who had given the information about the location of the deceased persons and he had given Rs. 10,000/ to the applicant accused Snodh for purchasing two sims. The statement of the witness Asarfi Lal was also recorded on 152006 who also stated that the coaccused Anurag and Ashish and three other unknown miscreants have committed the murder of the deceased Bhupendra, deceased Pappu had fled away on the motor cycle of Pappu, Anil and Ajai Pal at that time Dinesh, Kunwar Bahadur and the applicant Snodh was also present there, who were saying that the work had been done. They also fled away from the alleged place of occurrence. The statement of the first informant Kali Charan was recorded by the I.O. in question answer form on 2042006 who also alleged against the coaccused Anil Kumar Yadav and Snodh as the above mentioned witnesses stated.

Heard Sri V.C. Misra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.B. Maurya, Sri J.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. And Sri J.S. Sengar. Sri S.K. Pandey and Sri J.S. Audichya learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the applicant has been disclosed by the first informant in his second statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. on 2042006. The naming of the applicant is after thought. According to the statement of the first informant no role of causing injury is assigned to the applicant, the only allegation against Snodh is that he was also present near the place of occurrence, after commission of the alleged offence, he also fled away by saying that the work has been done.

There is no other evidence against the applicant even there is no evidence of hatching the conspiracy against the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated only on the basis of doubt and suspension. It is further contended that in the present case Pawan Kumar also sustained injuries. But it is also surprising that his statement has not been recorded by the I.O. Without recording his statement chargesheet has been submitted. The name of the injured Pawan Kumar was not deliberately incorporated because he was not going to support the alleged prosecution story. There was no intention or motive of the applicant to commit the alleged offence. The applicant is innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence. Therefore, he may be released on bail.

In reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that in a preplanned manner in furtherance of a conspiracy, the offence has been committed in which two persons have lost their lives and one person sustained injuries. The applicant is also a close associate of the accused Wazir Singh who had given open challenge to eliminate the deceased because the deceased Bhupendra Singh was elected Block Pramukh after defeating the coaccused Wazir Singh, there are several link of the evidence connecting the accused to the commission of the alleged offence. The applicant Snodh was present near the place of occurrence for watching the situation, after the commission of the alleged offence he also fled away from the place of occurrence by saying that the work has been done. The alleged occurrence has taken place at kutchery road in a broad day light. The gravity of the offence is too much. The naming of the applicant in the second statement of the first statement is natural because he disclosed the name when he himself satisfied about the involvement, if he was having any intention to nominate the applicant falsely, the name of the applicant would have been mentioned in the F.I.R. as an accused. The bail application of the coaccused Wazir Singh Yadav has been rejected by Hon''ble Shiv Shanker on 11102006 in criminal misc. bail application No. 13971 of 2006. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. It is a high profile murder. Therefore, the chances of tempering of the evidence and absconding the applicant are too much.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. And the learned Counsel for the complainant and considering the gravity of the offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.