Sonu Thakur vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—In this bail application, prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the accused-applicant Sonu Thakur s/o Arun Kumar, in Case Crime No. 257 of 2007, u/s 364A, I.P.C., P. S. Civil Lines, district Etawah.

An F.I.R. was lodged on 14.4.2007 at 1.35 p.m. at P. S. Sikohabad, District Firozabad, by the then S.H.O. S. S. Dengri. A case under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 149, I.P.C. and Section 41/102, Cr. P.C. read with Section 411, I.P.C. was registered against 1. Mama Thakur, 2. Sonu Thakur, 3. Sonu Pandit, 4. Sonu Yadav, 5. Vishal, 6. Parem Narayan, 7. Jagga Yadav, and 8. Shakti Yadav. The allegations made in the F.I.R., in brief, are that in police encounter on 14.4.2007 at about 11.50 a.m. abducted person Jai Narayan alias Tulsi was recovered from the house of accused Sonu Thakur. In that incident, the accused Sonu Thakur is said to have fired on the police party with a view to commit the murder of police personnel. All the accused persons are said to have fled away, who were identified by the witnesses and police personnel. On the same day another F.I.R. was lodged at 2.45 p.m. by Jai Narayan alias Tulsi s/o Anokhey Lal r/o Pipal Ka Adda, P.S. Civil Lines, district Etawah, arraying Smt. Soni, Jameel, Mama Thakur alias Fauji, Sonu Thakur, Sonu Pandit, Sonu Yadav, Vishal, Prem Narayan and Jagga Yadav as accused. It is alleged in that F.I.R. that when on 8.4.2007, the complainant was going to his house after performing his duty in Milan Bread Factory at about 6.00 p.m. and reached near Agriculture Engineering College Etawah City, the accused Jameel, Mama Thakur alias Fauji and Smt. Soni met him. A maruti car also was standing there, in which Sonu Thakur, Sonu Pandit, Sonu Yadav, Vishal, Prem Narayan and Jagga Yadav were sitting. The accused Smt. Soni, Jameel and Mama Thakur stopped the complainant by indication of hand and when he was talking to them, the accused persons sitting in maruti car came there and thereafter, all the accused dragged the complainant into maruti car and carried him to the house of Sonu Thakur in village Labhua and tied him there by chain. It is further alleged in this F.I.R. that Mama Thaur told that either he would transfer his land to them or would pay Rs. 5 lacs. It is further alleged that the accused persons continued to cause harassment of the complainant asking him that either transfer your land or give Rs. 5 lacs. It is also alleged in that F.I.R. that with the help of village people, he was recovered by the police.

I have heard arguments of Sri Shiv Ram Singh advocate, appearing for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Tiwari A.G.A. for the State at length and perused the entire record carefully.

The main submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant in support of the bail application was that the applicant was not known to the abducted person Jai Narayan alias Tulsi and it was for this reason that in his statement recorded u/s 164, Cr. P.C., he did not name the applicant and hence, on this ground, the applicant deserves bail, because he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police.

It was further submitted by the learned Counsel that due to pressure of the police, the complainant Jai Narayan alias Tulsi had named the applicant in the F.I.R., which he had lodged after his alleged recovery from the house of applicant.

It was also submitted that according to the F.I.R. lodged by S.H.O. S. S. Dengri at P. S. Sikohabad on 14.4.2007, Jai Narain alias Tulsi (complainant herein) is said to have been recovered on 14.4.2007 at 11.50 a.m., but F.I.R. of present case was lodged after great delay at 2.45 p.m., for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished.

Next submission made by the learned Counsel was that the applicant was not apprehended at the time of alleged recovery of the complainant and false story of recovery of the complainant from the house of applicant was concocted by the police.

Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant is in jail since 4.4.2008 and hence, on the ground of long detention period in jail, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, because due to delay in trial his fundamental right of speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution in being violated.

The A.G.A. opposed the bail application contending that the abducted person Jai Narain alias Tulsi was recovered form the house of applicant by the police in presence of two independent witnesses of public, who have fully supported prosecution case in their statements recorded u/s 161, Cr. P.C.

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and after carefully going through the entire case diary and other material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit, the applicant does not deserve bail in this heinous crime of abduction for ransom. There is sufficient prima facie evidence in the case diary to show that the abducted person Jai Narayan alias Tulsi was recovered from the house of applicant in a police encounter. Two independent witnesses, namely Ranvir Singh, s/o Babu Ram and Pancham Singh, s/o Mool Chand of the same village have supported the averments made in the F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 188 of 2007 lodged by S.H.O. of P. S. Sikohabad Sri S. S. Dengari. The applicant is named in the F.I.R. of present case also and allegation of abduction has been made against him also in addition to other accused persons. Although in his statement recorded u/s 164, Cr. P.C., the abducted person Jai Narayan @ Tulsi has not named the applicant, but from the evidence available in the case diary, it is prima facie established that Jai Narayan was kept tied by chain in the house of applicant Sonu Thakur and he was recovered from there in police encounter on 14.4.2007 at about 11.50 a.m. Although the applicant was not apprehended on the spot in that police encounter, but on the basis of the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161, Cr. P.C., it is prima face established that abducted person Jai Narayan was recovered from the house of the applicant, where he (Jai Narain) was kept tied in chain. It is also prima facie established that the applicant had fired on police party in that police encounter and he had fled away from there alongwith other accused persons. There is prima facie evidence to show that the applicant was seen and recognized by the witnesses at the time of police encounter in which recovery of abducted person was made. Averments made in the statements of witnesses have been supported by medical examination report of Jai Narayan alias Tulsi, copy whereof has been made in the case diary. Jai Narayan was medically examined on 14.4.2007 at 1.55 p.m. in Government Hospital, Sikohabad. Injuries were found on his neck and leg. Therefore, taking into consideration all these facts and available evidence, on the basis of the period of detention 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 applicant 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.

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the bail application of the applicant Sonu Thakur is hereby rejected.

The trial court concerned is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as early as possible making sincere efforts and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

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