Sonu alias Sirajuddin vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—Prayer for bail in this bail application u/s 439, Cr. P.C. has been made on behalf of the applicant Sonu alias Sirajuddin s/o Nazir Ali, in Case Crime No. 262 of 2008, under Sections 394, 302, 120B and 411/120B, I.P.C., P. S. Parikshitgarh, district Meerut.

Incident of committing robbery of Rs. 7,50,000 (Rupees seven lac fifty thousand only) took place on 28.4.2008 at about 10.45 a.m. in front of Syndicate Bank, Parikshitgarh, district Meerut. In that incident murder of Kiranpal, sales man of Milan Petrol Pump Parikshitgarh, was also committed by the miscreants. The sales man Kiranpal and the complainant Ashish Kumar had come to deposit the money in Syndicate Bank, from where Rs. 7.50 lac were looted after committing the murder of sales man. The complainant also fired from his licenced pistol on the miscreants, due to which one miscreant sustained injuries, who died later on while he was being carried by his companions. F.I.R. about that incident was lodged by Ashish Kumar at P. S. Parikshitgarh on 28.4.2008 at 11.30 a.m. against unknown persons. The allegation against the applicant Sonu alias Sirajuddin is that he alongwith co-accused Hasim (now deceased), Bablu Gurjar alias Joni (now murdered in police encounter on 4.5.2008) and Faizan alias Guddu hatched a conspiracy at the house of Uzama alias Sofiya to commit the robbery of the money of Milan Petrol Pump from Syndicate Bank Parikshitgarh and in pursuance of that conspiracy, robbery of Rs. 7.50 lac was committed on 28.4.2008 by the applicant and his companions. Further allegation against the applicant is that on the basis of his disclosure statement made to police, a sum of Rs. 20,000 was recovered on his pointing out during police custody remand on 16.5.2008.

I have heard lengthy arguments of Sri Amit Daga, advocate, appearing for the applicant and A.G.A. for the State.

The main submission made by learned Counsel was that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and he has been falsely roped in this case by the police without any legal evidence.

Regarding recovery of Rs. 20,000 on the pointing out of the applicant Sonu alias Sirajuddin on 16.5.2008 as alleged by the prosecution, it was submitted by learned Counsel that false recovery of Rs. 20,000 on the pointing out of the applicant during police custody remand has been shown and no recovery of any money was made on his pointing out on that date. It was further submitted in this context by learned Counsel for the applicant that in compliance of the order passed by C.J.M., Meerut, on the application of Investigating Officer for police custody remand of the applicant Sonu, two advocates, namely, Pradeep Kumar Sharma and Rahul Deep had accompanied the police party and applicant in maruti vehicle, which was being driven by Iliyas, but no recovery was made by the police on that date on the pointing out of the applicant, as is evident from the affidavits filed by aforesaid advocates and car driver Iliyas in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Meerut. For this submission, attention of the Court was drawn towards the copies of affidavits of aforesaid persons which have been filed as Annexure-9 in this bail application.

About hatching the conspiracy for committing robbery, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that absolutely false story has been concocted by the police and the applicant never hatched any conspiracy with other accused to commit the robbery as alleged by the prosecution.

It was further vehemently contended by Sri Amit Daga that the applicant was not apprehended on the spot at the time of alleged incident of robbery and since he was not known to the complainant and other witnesses prior to this incident, hence it was obligatory for the Investigating Officer to put the applicant for identification during investigation in Test ldentification Parade and since this obligation was not discharged by the Investigating Officer, hence identity of the applicant in the alleged incident cannot be said to be established.

It was also submitted by learned Counsel that the applicant is languishing in jail since 7.5.2008 and hence on the basis of the long detention period in jail, he is entitled to be released on bail, because due to delay in trial, fundamental right of speedy trial envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution is being violated.

Bail application was vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. contending that in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by the applicant. Sonu alias Sirajuddin alongwith other accused persons at the house of co-accused Uzama alias Sofiya, robbery of Rs. 7.50 lac was committed on 28.4.2008 from near Syndicate Bank Parikshitgarh after committing the murder of sales man Kiranpal and hence, in this heinous crime, the applicant should not be admitted to bail, because on the basis of his disclosure statement, Rs. 20,000 of the said robbery were recovered on his pointing out.

Regarding the affidavits filed by the advocates Pradeep Kumar and Rahul Deep as well as their car driver Iliyas, it was submitted by learned A.G.A. that out of the money of robbery which came in the share of the applicant, he had paid Rs. 50-60 thousands to the advocates and they have filed affidavits in lieu of that money in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Meerut with a view to save the applicant. For this submission, my attention was drawn towards the statement of applicant recorded by the Investigating Officer during interrogation.

It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that the witnesses Kapil and Fakeer Chand had seen the applicant and other accused persons near Milan Petrol Pump, Parikshitgarh, prior to the incident on 28.4.2008 as stated by them in their statements recorded during investigation on 29.4.2008.

I have carefully gone through the entire case diary and other material on record. Statement of Ashu alias Ashish, s/o Balbir Singh, r/o Lohiya Nagar, P. S. Kharkhaunda, district Meerut was recorded during investigation on 30.4.2008 in Parcha No. 3 of the case diary. From that statement, this fact is prima facie established that the applicant-accused Sonu alias Sirajuddin and co-accused. Hasim, Bablu Gurjar alias Joni and Faizan alias Guddu had hatched a conspiracy at the house of Uzama alias Sofiya to commit the robbery of the money of Milan Petrol Pump from Syndicate Bank, Parikshitgarh. When the applicant surrendered in Court in aforesaid case, on the basis of his disclosure statement made during interrogation by the Investigating Officer, his police custody remand was sought, which was granted vide order dated 15.5.2008, passed by C.J.M., Meerut. In pursuance of that order, the applicant was taken out from District Jail, Meerut on 16.5.2008 and on his pointing out, Rs. 20,000 are said to have been recovered by the police in presence of two public witnesses namely Bal Kishan s/o Har Pal and Yashpal s/o Man Singh. Recovery memo shows that seal of Milan Petrol Pump was affixed on the currency notes of Rs. 20,000, which are alleged to have been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant from the house of his father-in-law Mohd. Haneef, situated in Kasba Daurala, district Meerut. It has come in the statement (Annexure-5) of the complainant Ashish Kumar that they used to affix the seal of Milan Petrol Pump on currency notes before sending them to deposit in the Bank. Therefore, having taken into consideration all these facts and in view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned A.G.A., in this heinous crime of committing robbery and murder, the applicant does not deserve bail.

In my considered opinion, on the basis of the long incarceration in jail also, the applicant cannot be admitted to bail in this heinous crime. In this context, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and Ors. LXIII 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 persons within six months making sincere efforts and applying the provisions of Section 309, Cr. P.C.

S.S.P., Meerut also is 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 the witnesses are produced in the session trial arising out of Case Crime No. 262 of 2008 of P. S. Parikshitgarh without causing any delay.

Before parting with this order, I would like to point out that whatever observations have been made herein-above are for the purpose of disposal of this bail application only. The trial court would be at liberty to take its own view on all the matters independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by me in this order.

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