High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32344 of 2019 Applicant :- Manoj Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Santoshprad Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Rai Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. 2. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. A supplementary affidavit annexing the complete order-sheet and statement of PW-1 filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Santosh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the informant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned AGA for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 4. The instant bail application has been filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant, Manoj Pandey with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.832 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B & 506 of IPC, Police Station Soraon, District Allahabad, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY 5. Facts, in brief, giving rise to the present application are that the deceased Pratap Narayan, who happens to be the nephew of the informant, is married to Rinki. The applicant, his family members along with co-accused Amar and his father are having a grudge against the deceased persons as there was a property dispute between the parties and the applicant and other co-accused persons had an evil eye on their property which was to be inherited by the deceased persons. Owing to it, in the night of 06/07.09.2018, all four deceased persons, namely, Pratap Narayan Mishra, his wife Rinki, his son Virat and his mother-in-law Kamlesh Devi were put to death owing to the said motive. In this regard, the FIR has been lodged by the informant Radhakrishna Mishra on 2 07.09.2018 at about 02:34 PM. RIVAL CONTENTIONS 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of suspicion and false motive. The applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have threatened the deceased persons to leave the village and to stop thinking to inherit the said property and, as such, the said offence is alleged to have been committed. Learned counsel has further stated that except the presence of motive, there is no other evidence on record to suggest that the applicant has committed the said offence. During investigation, the police had taken into account the statements of the Gram Pradhan, Laxmi Kant Prajapati, and other independent witnesses, who had suspected the co-accused persons, namely, Rahul Pasi, Lokai @ Aalok Pasi, Nanka Pasi and Sushil @ Baba Pasi that they were seen by them taking liquor in the night of 06.09.2018 at about 10:00 PM. He has further stated that the police has falsely implicated the applicant owing to the pressure of the public at large as there was an outrage due to the murder of four persons including a child and two women. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the only evidence adduced with respect to the commissioning of crime is the confession of the applicant before police which is barred by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is no recovery at the pointing out of the applicant. Learned counsel has further stated that a baby girl one and a half month old could survive and it was the family of the applicant who has taken care of her immediately after the said unfortunate incident. The motive itself does not stands substantiated by any evidence as still there are two other surviving daughters of the father-in-law of the deceased person Pratap Narayan Mishra, who would also inherit the said property of the deceased person. To add to it, there is a grand daughter of the deceased person, Smt. Kamlesh Devi who is still surviving so the motive 3 also does not stands substantiated. There is no evidence whatsoever of conspiracy having been hatched between the applicant and the so-called actual perpetrator of crime. There is no evidence against the applicant of last seen near the place of occurrence. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on several statements of the witnesses and has stated that due to broadening of the road, walls of the house were broken open and as such, the house was open for access to one and all. Learned counsel has further stated that this is a blind murder committed in dark and the applicant has been made a scapegoat owing to some grudge, which is stated to be in the mind of the informant and his family members. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that an application was moved to the Chief Minister signed by 95 persons of the locality who have stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.10.2018 having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial. 10. Per contra, Sri Santosh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that this is a brutal murder of four persons as such, the very conscious of the society was hurt. There is a clinching evidence against the applicant that the applicant and other members of his family bore a grudge towards the deceased persons as they were likely to inherit the property of the deceased persons which would have been otherwise inherited by the applicant and his family members. He has further stated that the statement of PW-1 has been recorded and the statement of PW-2 is about to be completed. The PW-1 in his statement has reiterated the allegations levelled in the FIR. However, learned counsel for the informant could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 4 11. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that the father of the applicant was responsible for abscondance/death of the son of deceased Smt. Kamlesh Devi. He has further argued that the house of the applicant is adjacent to the house of deceased person and they have not come to their rescue as they might have heard the shrieks of the deceased persons. 12. In support of the arguments adduced by the learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA has also opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the trial is going on as the statement of witnesses are being recorded. This is a brutal murder of four persons of a family and it is the applicant only who would be benefited from the death of the deceased persons although he could not indicate any other evidence on record for implicating the applicant. CONCLUSION 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, stage of trial, the complicity of accused, severity of punishment and also considering the long period of incarceration of the applicant, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for releasing the applicant on bail. 14. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Manoj Pandey, involved in aforesaid crime 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 that :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. (ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. 5 (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 16. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 17. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 11.1.2023 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad