High Court

(Order on C.M. Application No.1 of 2024--FIRST BAIL APPLICATION of Appellant- Ram Sagar)

1. Heard Mr. Surya Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Umesh Chandra Verma, learned A.G.A.-1 for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been moved by the Appellant- Ram Sagar, who is convict of Sessions Trial No.442 of 2004, arising out of Case Crime No.373 of 2004, under Sections 147, 302/149, 201 of the I.P.C., at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur, and sentenced for maximum term of life imprisonment pertaining to Sections 302/149 I.P.C. with fine of Rs.50,000/-, vide judgment and order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, praying to release him on bail, during pendency of instant appeal. 3. In the instant case, initially the FIR was lodged against unknown persons on the recovery of a partially decomposed body of an unknown person. The post mortem of the body was done by the Medical Officer on 06.05.2004 and he found a deep cut on the level of C-6 and C-7 of the vertebra which was ante-mortem and opined that a sharp cutting object was used to cause such ante-mortem injuries. Since the body of the unknown person was half decomposed, his identity could not be established and photographs were published in the Newspapers and Pamphlets were pasted on Railway Station, Bus Station and Tempo Stand and other public places. One Ram Prakash Chaubey alias Lallan Chaubey approached the Investigating Officer on 10.05.2004 saying that he believed that the dead body shown in the Photograph/Pamphlets was that of his brother Pankaj. He took the Investigating Officer to the house of Ramchander Chaubey, the father of the deceased where the father of the deceased-Ramchander Chaubey and his mother Smt. Gayatri Devi and his younger brother Phool Chandra @ Anshul recognized the body of the unknown person as that of Pankaj, who was a driver and had left his home on 29.04.2004 and had told his parents that he would come back on 08.05.2004 but he had not come back as promised.

4. It has been argued that one Deep Chand alias Annu, who was a brother of the deceased Pankaj Chaubey approached the Investigating Officer and stated that he had seen the accused Pawan, Santosh, Kinney, Dinesh, Ram Sagar and Kuldeep sitting together in the house of Ashok Chaubey and talking about how to dispose of the body of the deceased-Pankaj. Kulhadi

5. It has been submitted that one of the co-accused Pawan was arrested and on his pointing out the alleged (Axe) was recovered. weapon of assault Thereafter, the other accused were arrested and on completion of investigation Charge-sheet was filed. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that Deep Chand @ Annu, the brother of the deceased-Pankaj was not examined as a prosecution witness by the Trial Court. There is no evidence even of last seen.

6. It has also been pointed out that PW-4 and PW-5 have given statements after almost two months indicating that they had seen the deceased and all the accused sitting in the field of one Makhanchu Chaurasia.

7. It has been argued by the learned A.G.A. that PW-7- the mother of the deceased- Pankaj had also stated that the accused had visited the house of the deceased at around 08:00 PM in the evening and had called her son and taken him away.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, has pointed out that PW-7-Smt. Gayatri Devi, did not mention this fact at the time when her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded. This improvisation in the Prosecution Story/ Testimony of PW-7 occurred almost eight years after the alleged incident in 2004. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case and the Trial Court failed to appreciate the circumstances placed against the appellants during the course of trial in right perspective. It is further submitted that the appellant is in jail in this case for the last about one year. He is not having any criminal antecedents.

9. The appellant is undertaken that he will cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the appeal also and his counsel shall remain present before this Court as and when the appeal would be listed for hearing.

10. Having gone through the Testimony of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7 and also taking into account the fact that Deep Chand alias Annu was not examined as a prosecution witness although the Investigating Officer states that he was the person who had given the initial proof to the Investigating Officer regarding the culpability of the accused, we are prima facie of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant sufficient enough to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant.

12. In result, the bail application of the appellant is allowed.

13. Let the Appellant- Ram Sagar, involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) However, the fine as awarded by the trial court is not stayed. The same shall be deposited with the trial court by the appellant within three months from his actual release from prison, if the same has not been earlier deposited. (ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

14. The trial court shall transmit the bail bonds submitted by the appellant to this Court, forthwith. (Order on Appeal) Office is directed to prepare the paper book at the earliest. List this appeal on 10.09.2025 for hearing. Order Date :- 30.7.2025 N.PAL

(Order on C.M. Application No.1 of 2024--FIRST BAIL APPLICATION of Appellant- Ram Sagar)

1. Heard Mr. Surya Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Umesh Chandra Verma, learned A.G.A.-1 for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been moved by the Appellant- Ram Sagar, who is convict of Sessions Trial No.442 of 2004, arising out of Case Crime No.373 of 2004, under Sections 147, 302/149, 201 of the I.P.C., at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur, and sentenced for maximum term of life imprisonment pertaining to Sections 302/149 I.P.C. with fine of Rs.50,000/-, vide judgment and order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, praying to release him on bail, during pendency of instant appeal. 3. In the instant case, initially the FIR was lodged against unknown persons on the recovery of a partially decomposed body of an unknown person. The post mortem of the body was done by the Medical Officer on 06.05.2004 and he found a deep cut on the level of C-6 and C-7 of the vertebra which was ante-mortem and opined that a sharp cutting object was used to cause such ante-mortem injuries. Since the body of the unknown person was half decomposed, his identity could not be established and photographs were published in the Newspapers and Pamphlets were pasted on Railway Station, Bus Station and Tempo Stand and other public places. One Ram Prakash Chaubey alias Lallan Chaubey approached the Investigating Officer on 10.05.2004 saying that he believed that the dead body shown in the Photograph/Pamphlets was that of his brother Pankaj. He took the Investigating Officer to the house of Ramchander Chaubey, the father of the deceased where the father of the deceased-Ramchander Chaubey and his mother Smt. Gayatri Devi and his younger brother Phool Chandra @ Anshul recognized the body of the unknown person as that of Pankaj, who was a driver and had left his home on 29.04.2004 and had told his parents that he would come back on 08.05.2004 but he had not come back as promised.

4. It has been argued that one Deep Chand alias Annu, who was a brother of the deceased Pankaj Chaubey approached the Investigating Officer and stated that he had seen the accused Pawan, Santosh, Kinney, Dinesh, Ram Sagar and Kuldeep sitting together in the house of Ashok Chaubey and talking about how to dispose of the body of the deceased-Pankaj. Kulhadi

5. It has been submitted that one of the co-accused Pawan was arrested and on his pointing out the alleged (Axe) was recovered. weapon of assault Thereafter, the other accused were arrested and on completion of investigation Charge-sheet was filed. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that Deep Chand @ Annu, the brother of the deceased-Pankaj was not examined as a prosecution witness by the Trial Court. There is no evidence even of last seen.

6. It has also been pointed out that PW-4 and PW-5 have given statements after almost two months indicating that they had seen the deceased and all the accused sitting in the field of one Makhanchu Chaurasia.

7. It has been argued by the learned A.G.A. that PW-7- the mother of the deceased- Pankaj had also stated that the accused had visited the house of the deceased at around 08:00 PM in the evening and had called her son and taken him away.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, has pointed out that PW-7-Smt. Gayatri Devi, did not mention this fact at the time when her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded. This improvisation in the Prosecution Story/ Testimony of PW-7 occurred almost eight years after the alleged incident in 2004. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case and the Trial Court failed to appreciate the circumstances placed against the appellants during the course of trial in right perspective. It is further submitted that the appellant is in jail in this case for the last about one year. He is not having any criminal antecedents.

9. The appellant is undertaken that he will cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the appeal also and his counsel shall remain present before this Court as and when the appeal would be listed for hearing.

10. Having gone through the Testimony of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7 and also taking into account the fact that Deep Chand alias Annu was not examined as a prosecution witness although the Investigating Officer states that he was the person who had given the initial proof to the Investigating Officer regarding the culpability of the accused, we are prima facie of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant sufficient enough to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant.

12. In result, the bail application of the appellant is allowed.

13. Let the Appellant- Ram Sagar, involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) However, the fine as awarded by the trial court is not stayed. The same shall be deposited with the trial court by the appellant within three months from his actual release from prison, if the same has not been earlier deposited. (ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

14. The trial court shall transmit the bail bonds submitted by the appellant to this Court, forthwith. (Order on Appeal) Office is directed to prepare the paper book at the earliest. List this appeal on 10.09.2025 for hearing. Order Date :- 30.7.2025 N.PAL