High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6630 of 2022 Appellant :- Chhotey Lal @ Chhota Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Chandel,Manish Tandon,Shyam Sunder Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jaya Tiwari with Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7661 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
Appellant :- Shyam Sunder Patel Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Pramod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jaya Tiwari with Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9783 of 2022 Appellant :- Vinod Patel Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Diwan Saifullah Khan,Abhishek Ankur Chaurasia Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jaya Tiwari Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. Heard Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant Chhotey Lal @ Chhota, Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava and Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant Shyam Sunder Patel, Sri Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsel for the appellant Vinod Patel, Ms. Jaya Tiwari, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ashish Mani Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. Instant criminal appeals under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act has been filed by the appellants namely, Chhotey Lal @ Chhota, Shyam Sunder Patel and Vinod Patel against the orders dated 31.8.2022 and 13.9.2022, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Chitrakoot in Bail Application Nos.954 of 2022, 1000 of 2022 and 1009 of 2022, in Case Crime No.213 of 2022, under Sections 304, 506 IPC & Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act, Police Station- Karvi, District- Chitrakoot.
Decision
As these three appeals arise out of same case crime number, hence, the respective appeals of the appellants are being disposed of by this common order:- Learned counsel for the appellant Chhotey Lal @ Chhota submitted that as per the prosecution version, the informant Kamta Prasad lodged an FIR on 3.6.2022 at 15:47 hours, stating therein that his father Achhelal Kotarya was former gram pradhan and on 3.6.2022, at round 5:30 A.M. he has gone to perform 'parikrama', accused persons namely, Shyam Sunder Patel and Vinod Patel alongwith 6 to 7 persons had laid a trap on his way and assaulted him brutally by clubs, iron rod and left him injured in the pool of blood in front of Naya Panchayat Office, Khohi. The eye- witnesses had informed him telephonically. He came to the place and rushed his father to District Hospital Chitrakoot from where he was referred to Satna but he died on the way to Satna. Prior to the incident, the accused persons had came to his house and threatened his father as he refused to do illegal act. He next submitted that the accused appellant is not named in the FIR. The informant is not named eye-witness. In his statement he has stated that when he was taking his father from Chitrakoot to Satna in a vehicle, his father stated that Shyam Sunder Patel, Vinod Patel and a person assaulted him brutally, however, he named the third person as 'छ' only and thereafter he died. Even the witness Santosh, who is said to be a witness of locality and in front of whose house, the deceased was found in injured position, has also not named the accused appellant or any accused in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He had only stated that on 3.6.2022, three persons, whom he could not identify, brutally assaulted a person whose name later came to know as Achhe Lal, resident of Chitragokulpur, who became in pool of blood. A crowd assembled there. The assailant escaped the place after threatening him. He further submitted that the independent witnesses of the locality Smt. Gyanmati, Amrit Lal, Santosh Kumar, Smt. Rajabeti, Manish Kumar and Suresh Kumar, Prashant and Rajendra have stated in their statements that they subsequently came to know that Chhotey Lal @ Chhota, Shyam Sunder Patel and Vinod Patel had threatened the deceased and assaulted him brutally on 3.6.2022 on parikrama marg, Chitrakoot. Therefore, none of the independent witnesses has seen the incident and these witnesses have named the accused appellants on the basis of subsequent information gathered by them. He further submitted that the police arrested three accused persons on 10.6.2022 on the basis of secret information and a stick was allegedly recovered at the pointing out of co-accused Shyam Sunder Patel and a bamboo stick was allegedly recovered at the pointing out of accused appellant and on the basis of their confessional statement before police, they are falsely implicated by the police, as the appellant Chhotey Lal was implicated in the case. The sticks allegedly recovered from appellant and co-accused are of ordinary nature, which are usually found in parikrama marg has left by travellers to save from monkeys. It is not specified that these sticks were blood stained and same were sent for chemical analysis in respect of human blood. He next submitted that had the informant got information of accused appellants from his father on way to Satna, he must have included the name of present appellant in FIR. He lastly submitted that the criminal history of appellant is explained in paragraph No.30 to 33 of the affidavit filed in support of the appeal, wherein it is stated that accused appellant has been acquitted in one case and has been enlarged on bail in three cases, copy of bail orders are annexed with the affidavit. Appellant is in jail since 10.6.2022. Learned counsel for the appellants namely, Shyam Sunder Patel and Vinod Patel submitted that the inquest was conducted in presence of the informant before lodging of the FIR but name of any accused persons has not been mentioned therein and name of appellants Shyam Sunder Patel and Vinod Patel is mentioned in the FIR only on the basis of suspicion and with ulterior motive. The deceased was former 'gram pradhan' and they are falsely named in the FIR due to animosity in village gram pradhan election. All the three accused persons belong to same village of deceased and informant. He further submitted that the criminal history of accused Vinod Patel is of four cases, which is explained in paragraph No.21 of his appeal and he has been already enlarged on bail in three cases by orders of competent court. The criminal history of accused Shyam Sunder Patel is of four cases, which is explained in paragraph No.15 of the affidavit filed in support of his appeal and he has already been enlarged on bail in two cases by orders of competent court and in two cases, he has been acquitted, a copy of bail and acquittal orders are annexed as Annexure No.8 to the affidavit filed in support of the appeal. Appellants are in jail since 11.6.2022. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellants and submitted that there are ample evidence against accused appellants, which suggests their complicity in the offence of brutal killing of the deceased. In post mortem examination report, as many as 10 antemortem injuries has been shown on the person of deceased and the cause of death is disclosed as shock and haemorrhage due to antemortem injuries. The deceased has received multiple injuries on different parts of the body including vital parts. He also suffered grievous hurt on his chest and in left year bleeding was found present. All the independent witnesses have stated in their respective statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that at the time and date of incident, three persons brutally assaulted the deceased and they are name was known to them subsequently as Chhotey Lal @ Chhota, Shyam Sunder Patel and Vinod Patel. These are the eye-witnesses of the incident. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and nature of evidence, they do not deserve to be released on bail. The informant stated stated in FIR that the deceased had stated name of two accused persons on way to Satna from Chitrakoot before his death. He is admittedly not an eye witness. In FIR accused Shyam Sunder Patel and Vinod Patel are named as assailants accompanied with 6 and 7 other persons. It is stated by them u/s 161 Cr.P.C. also that the deceased who was father of the informant had told name of these two persons to him in the injured state when he was taken to Satna after being referred from District Hospital, Chitrakoot, he died on way to Satna. It has also been stated that these persons were exerting pressure on him to do certain illegal act. Other witness namely Ram Karan, who is brother of the deceased, has stated that he was taking his brother Achheylal to Satna for treatment alongwith his nephew Kamta (informant), his father told him name of Shyam Sunder Patel and Vinod Patel and some other persons, who had assaulted him by clubs and sticks. Thereafter, his brother died after some time. The independent witnesses have stated in their statement that three persons had assaulted the deceased on the date and place of incident and subsequently they came to know their name as Chhotey Lal @ Chhota, Shyam Sunder Patel and Vinod Patel. The name of accused appellants Shyam Sunder Patel and Vinod Patel surfaced in FIR itself and the first informant although not an eye- witness but has stated in his FIR that deceased has told name of Shyam Sunder Patel and Vinod Patel as assailant alongwith some other persons on way to Satna. This fact is corroborated by his uncle Ram Karan, who is also said to accompany the deceased in injured condition on way to Satna. Therefore, these statements of witnesses may come within the purview of dying declaration of the deceased made to them. Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and keeping in view the fact that accused appellants namely, Shyam Sunder Patel and Vinod Patel are named in FIR as well as in the statement of witnesses, the role and motive assigned to them in offence, nature of other supporting evidence but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants namely, Shyam Sunder Patel and Vinod Patel have not made out a case for bail. So far as accused appellant Chhotey Lal @ Chhota is concerned, the case of appellant is distinguishable from these two accused persons, who are named in the FIR. Had the deceased told his name to his son or brother, his name must have surfaced in the FIR itself. Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and keeping in view the complicity of the accused appellant, nature of the offence and other attending circumstances but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the appeals filed by accused appellants namely, Shyam Sunder Patel and Vinod Patel are hereby Dismissed. The impugned order dated 13.9.2022 rejecting the bail applications of the appellants are hereby affirmed and the appeal filed by accused appellant Chhotey Lal @ Chhota is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 31.8.2022 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Chhotey Lal @ Chhota released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the appellant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant on bail. It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant. It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 6.4.2023 Kamarjahan Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad