Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Even After Acquittal Of Co-accused, Trial Of Other Similarly Placed Accused Will Not Be Barred".
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Manoj Vs. State Of U.P. On 04/07/2008 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 15160 OF 2008
CORAM : Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

AFR
Reserved


Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15160 Of 2008


Manoj............................................. Applicant

Vs.
State Of U.P. .............. Opposite Party



Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.

The Applicant Seeks Bail In Crime No. 1193 Of 2006 Under Section 302 I.P.C. Of P.S. Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar.
2. I Have Heard Arguments Of Sri Amit Daga, Learned Counsel For The Applicant, Sri Onkar Singh, Learned Counsel For The Complainant And Learned A.G.A. For The State And Also Perused The Record Carefully.
3.An F.I.R. Was Lodged On 22.08.2006 At 10.10 A.m. At P.S. Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar By The Complainant Rishi Pal Against The Applicant Manoj And His Brother Vinod. A Case Under Section 302 I.P.C. At Crime No. 1193/06 Was Registered Against Them. The Allegations Made In The F.I.R., In Brief, Are That Both The Accused Committed The Murder Of Their Father Mehak Singh In The Field On 22.08.2006 At About 09.00 A.m. By Causing Injuries To Him By Means Of Firearms.
4.Principle Of Stare Decisis Is The Ground For Bail In This Case, About Which It Was Submitted By Learned Counsel For The Applicant That After Contest, The Co-accused Vinod Has Been Acquitted By The Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Muzaffar Nagar Vide Judgement Dated 17.08.2007 Passed In S.T. No. 344 Of 2007 (State Vs. Vinod Kumar @ Vikki) And Hence, The Applicant Should Be Granted Bail As The Entire Prosecution Case And Complicity Of Both The Accused In The Incident Of Murder Of Their Father Has Been Disbelieved By The Learned Trial Court In Aforesaid Session Trial.
5.It Was Further Contended By Learned Counsel For The Applicant That Trial Of The Applicant Is Barred On The Principle Of Stare Decisis Due To Acquittal Of Co-accused Vinod And Entire Proceeding Arising Out Of Crime No. 1193 Of 2006 Pending Against The Applicant Is Liable To Be Quashed And Hence On This Ground, The Applicant Deserve Bail. For This Contention, The Learned Counsel For The Applicant Has Placed Reliance On The Following Rulings:-
(i) Baij Nath And Others Vs. State Of U.P. [2004 (49) ACC 303].

(ii) Prem Kumar And Another Vs. State Of U.P. And Another [2005(53)ACC 593].

(iii) Rashim Vs. State Of U.P. And Another [2005(53) ACC 636].

(iv) Rajendra Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. And Another [2006(56) ACC 611].

(v) Central Bureau Of Investigation Vs. Akhilesh Singh (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 478.

6.The Learned A.G.A. And Learned Counsel For The Complainant On The Other Hand Vehemently Contended That The Applicant Does Not Deserve Bail In This Heinous Crime And The Trial Pending Against Him Is Not Barred. For This Contention, Reliance Has Been Placed On The Case Of Rajan Rai Vs. State Of Bihar (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 209. The Contention Of The Learned A.G.A. And Learned Counsel For The Complainant Was That Inspite Of The Acquittal Of Co-accused Vinod, The Trial Of The Applicant Has To Be Made And Since The Applicant Remained Absconding For About Two Years, Hence, He Should Not Be Granted Bail, Because After Being Released On Bail, He May Abscond Again And Will Not Attend The Court. It Was Further Submitted By The Learned Counsel For The Complainant That Revision Has Been Preferred By The Complainant Against The Judgement Dated 17.08.2007 Passed In S.T. No. 344 Of 2007 And Hence, That Judgement Is Not Relevant At This Stage.
7.Having Carefully Gone Through The Judgement Dated 17.08.2007 Of S.T. No. 344 Of 2007, Copy Whereof Has Been Filed As Annexure-IV In This Case, In My Opinion, Prima Facie Case For Granting Bail To The Accused Is Made Out. The Following Findings Recorded By Learned Trial Court In The Aforesaid Judgement Are Worth Mentioning:-
"ekuuh; MPpre U;k;ky; Ds MijksDr Of.Zkr N`"VkUr Esa Izfrikfnr O;oLFkk Ds Vkyksd Esa ;fn VfHk;kstu Lk{; Dh Fo'oluh;rk Dks Ij[kk Tk;s Rks Esjs Fuf'pr VfHker Esa VfHk;kstu Lk{; VfHk;qDr Fouksn Dh Bl Vijk/k Esa LafyIrrk Dh Iq"V Djus Gsrq I;kZIr Ugha GS VkSj Fdlh Hkh N`f"V Ls VfHk;qDr Fouksn Fojfpr Vkjksiksa Dk Nks"kh OrZeku Lk{; Ds Vk/kkj Ij Ugha Bgjk;k Tk Ldrk A Esjs Fopkj Ls VfHk;kstu I{k Dk DFkkud U Dsoy VO;ogkfjd] Vfo'oluh; Oju VlEHkkO; GS CfYd Og Fof/k Ds LFkkfir Ekin.Mksa Ij [kjk Hkh Ugha Mrjk GSA VfHk;kstu Lk{khx.k Dk Lk{; ,d Nwljs Ds LeUo; ,oa FujUrjrk Esa U Gksdj Fojks/kkHkk"kh RFkk XEHkhj FdLe Dh Folaxfr;ksa Ls XzLr GSA ¼fu.kZ; Dk Vkarfjd Ist 17½A


Ekuuh; MPpre U;k;ky; Dh LanfHkZr Nksuks Gh Uthjksa Esa Izfrikfnr O;oLFkkvksa Ds Vkyksd Esa VfHk;kstu DFkkud RFkk Muds }kjk IzLrqr Vijk/k Ds Gsrqd Dh Izlkafxdrk ,oa Lohdk;Zrk Ij Fopkj Djus Ds Dze Esa ES Bu Fu"d"kksZa Ij Igqprk GwW Fd U Rks VfHk;kstu DFkkud TSlk Yk;k X;k GS Og Izksosfoy GS VkSj U Gh VfHk;kstu I{k }kjk IzLrqr Vijk/k Dk Gsrqd O;ogkfjd ,oa Lohdk;Z GSA ¼fu.kZ; Dk Vkarfjd Ist 21½

Bl Ekeys Dh VU; IfjfLFkfr;ka ,oa VfHk;kstu Lk{; Esa MRiUu Folaxfr;ka Hkh Bl Lansg Dh Iqf"V Djrh GS Fd VfHk;qDr Fouksn VkSj Mlds HkkbZ Us Vius Firk Dh GR;k Ugha Dh Fkh D;ksafd Vius Firk Dh GR;k Djus Ls Os Fdlh Hkh Izdkj YkHkkfUor Gksus Ugha Tk Jgs FksA VfHk;kstu Lk{khx.k Dh Eq[; I`PNk Ds ;g DFku Fd Eukst ,oa Fouksn Us Vius Firk Egd Flag Ij Ncko Cuk J[kk Fkk Fd Og Viuh Tehu ;k Rks Muds Uke Dj Ns ;k Mls Cspdj Mldk ISlk MUgsa Ns Ns] Dks XEHkhjrk Ls Ns[kus Ij ;g N`f"Vxkspj Gksrk GS Fd IzFke Lwpuk FjiksVZ ,oa Lk{khx.k Dh Eq[; I`PNk Ds MijksDr DFku Iw.kZr% CukoVh GSA¼fu.kZ; Dk Vkarfjd Ist 27½

PWwfd VfHk;kstu I{k }kjk Yk;k X;k E`rd Egd Flag Dh GR;k Dk MijksDr Gsrqd Eu EfLr"d Dks IzHkkfor Ugha Djrk ,oa U;kf;d Foosd Dks Lqfuf'pr Ugha Djrk] Vr% ;g U;k;ky; Bl Fuf'pr VfHker Dk GS Fd E`rd Egd Flag Dh GR;k VfHk;qDrx.k }kjk Djus Dk DksbZ Dkj.k Gh Ugha FkkA" ¼fu.kZ; Dk Vkarfjd Ist 30½

8. Three Witnesses Namely P.W. 1, Rishi Pal, P.W. 2, Hukam Singh And P.W. 3, Devi Chandra Were Examined In The Aforesaid Session Trial. Although In The F.I.R., The Complainant Rishi Pal Alone Has Been Shown As Eyewitness Of The Incident Of Murder Of Deceased Mehak Singh, But During Investigation Two More Witnesses Namely Hukum Singh And Devi Chand Were Introduced. After Making Evaluation Of The Testimony Of These Witnesses, The Following Observations Have Been Made By The Learned Trial Court In The Aforesaid Judgement:-
"vfHk;kstu L{khx.k _f"kiky Ih0MCyw0 1] :du Flag Ih0MCyw 2 RFkk NsohpUn Ih0MCyw 3 Ds Lk{; Dks XEHkhjrk Ls Ns[kus Ds MijkUr ES Bl Fopkj Dk GWw Fd VfHk;kstu Lk{khx.k :du Flag Ih0MCyw02 RFkk Nsohpan Ih0MCyw0 3 Dh MifLFkfr ?kVukLFky Ij Lk{; Ls Fl) Ugha Gq;h GS VkSj ;g U;k;ky; BUgha Fu"d"kksZ Dks Fudkyus Gsrq Ck/; Gqvk GS Fd MijksDr Lk{khx.k E`rd Egd Flag Dh GR;k Ds Le; ?kVuk LFky Ij EkStwn Ugha Fks RFkk Muds }kjk E`rd Egd Flag Dh GR;k Gksrs Ugh Ans[kh X;h FkhA¼fu.kZ; Dk Vkarfjd Ist 34½A

IjUrq Ih0MCyw0 1 Ds Lk{; Dks MijksDr Ekin.Mksa Ij Tkapus Ds MijkUr ESa ,d Fo'oluh; Lk{kh Ugha Ikrk VkSj Esjs Fopkj Ls Ih0MCyw0 1 Us VfHk;qDr Dks Nks"k Fl) Bgjkus Ds ,d Ek= Mn~~ns'; Ls CukoVh ,oa VlR; Lk{; Fn;k GS A Mldk Lk{; U Dsoy IzFke Lwpuk FjiksVZ Ds DFkuksa Ds Ijs ,oa Foijhr GS CfYd Lo;a Mlds C;ku VUrxZr /kkjk 161 N0iz0 La0 Ds Hkh Izfrdwy GS VkSj BEiwzoesaV Dh DksfV Esa Vkrk GSA ¼fu.kZ; Dk Vkarfjd Ist 38½

Bl Izdkj Ih0MCyw0 1 Dh Eq[; I`PNk Dk ;g C;ku Fd :du Flag] Nsohpan VkSj V:.k Us Lkjk Okdk Ns[kk Fkk] LokHkkfod] Fo'oluh; ,oa Lohdk;Z Izrhr Ugha GksrkA Ih0Mcyw0 1 _f"kiky Ds Lk{; Dh ;g Detksfj;ka Mls ,d Iw.kZ :i Ls Fo'oluh; L{kh Ugha CukrhA ¼fu.kZ; Dk Vkarfjd Ist 40½A

MijksDr Dkj.kksa Ls ESa BUgha Fu"d"kksZa Ij IgqWprk GwW Fd Ih0 Mcyw0 2 :du Flag ,d Fu"i{k ,oa Fo'oluh; Lk{kh Ugha GS] Og E`rd Egd Flag Dh GR;k Gksrs Le; ?kVuk LFky Okys [ksr Essaa EkStwn Ugha FkkA Ih0 Mcyw0 2 U Dsoy Ml ?kVuk LFky Okys [ksr Ij EkStwn Ugha Fkk CfYd Og Vf/kdre Ml [ksr Tks Xkao Dh Eq[; LMd Ls TksMus Okyh PdjksM Ij Fkk EkStwn Gks Ldrk Fkk IjUrq Rc Mls E`rd Dh GR;k Gksrs Ns[kus Dk DksbZ Volj MiyC/k Ugha FkkA ¼fu.kZ; Dk Vkarfjd Ist 45½A

Bu IfjfLFkfr;ksaa Esa Ih0 Mcyw0 3 Ls ;g Vk'kk Ugha Dh Tk Ldrh Fd Og LorU= ,oa Fo'oluh; DksfV Dk Lk{; Nsxk D;ksafd Viuh UkSdjh Dks Cpkuk Gh Mldh ;gh IzkFkfedrk GksxhA VU;Fkk Hkh Mldk Lk{; LEc) IfjfLFkfr;ksa Ds Vuqdwy Ugha Ik;k X;k GS VkSj LEc) IfjfLFkfr;kW Hkh ?kVuk LFky Ij Mldh MifLFkfr Dks Udkjrh GSA¼fu.kZ; Dk Vkarfjd Ist 47½

Lk{; Ds MijksDr Foospu ,oa MijksDr Dkj.kksa Ls ES BUgha LokHkkfod Fu"d"kksZ Ij IgqWprk GwW Fd E`rd Egd Flag Dh GR;k Dks Fl) Djus Gsrq Ftu 3 Lk{khx.k Dks P'enhn Lk{kh Ds :i Esa Ijhf{kr Djk;k X;k GS] Mudh ?kVukLFky Ij MifLFkfr Lansg Ls Ijs ,oa Fo'oluh;
VfHk;kstu Lk{; Dh XEHkhjrk Ls Fo'ys"k.k Djus Ds Mijkar ES Lo;a Dks Fo)ku Vf/koDrkx.k Cpko I{k Ds RdksZ Ls Gh Lger Ikrk GwW VkSj Esjs Fopkj Ls Hkh E`rd Dh GR;k Izkr% 9 Cts Ugha GqbZ Fkh VFkok IzFke Lwpuk FjiksVZ Dks ,UVhVkbe NtZ Dj N'kkZ;k X;k GSA ¼fu.kZ; Dk Vkarfjd Ist 50½A

,sls Esa Tc Rgjhjh FjiksVZ Esa Vijk/k Ls LEcf/kr VU; Fooj.kksa Dk Hkh MYys[k Ugha Fd;k X;k Fkk] ES Bl VfHker Dk GwW Fd Vijk/k Dh IzFke Lwpuk FjiksVZ ,d LokHkkfod ,oa Fo'oluh; NLrkost Ugha GS CfYd Og Ifjoknh _f"kiky Ds ,d "kM;U= Dk Gh Ifj.kke GSA" ¼fu.kZ; Dk Vkarfjd Ist 52½

9. Although I Fully Agree With The Contention Of The Learned Counsel For The Complainant And Learned A.G.A. That In View Of The Law Laid Down By The Hon'ble Apex Court In The Case Of Rajan Rai Vs. State Of Bihar (2006)(1) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 209, The Trial Of The Applicant Is Not Barred And Criminal Proceedings Arising Out Of Crime No. 1193 Of 2006 Under Section 302 I.P.C. Of P.S. Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar Pending Against The Applicant Cannot Be Quashed Due To The Acquittal Of Co-accused Vinod In S.T. No. 344 Of 2007, But Having Regard To The Above Mentioned Findings Recorded By The Learned Trial Court In The Said Judgement, In My Opinion, The Applicant Deserves Bail In This Case.
Let The Applicant Manoj Involved In Case Crime No. 1193 Of 2006 Under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar Be Released On Bail On His Executing A Personal Bond Of Rs. 50,000/- And Furnishing Two Sureties Each In The Like Amount To The Satisfaction Of The Chief Judicial Magistrate Concerned And Executing An Undertaking In The Following Terms:-
1. The Applicant Shall Not Tamper With Prosecution Evidence By Intimidating The Witnesses.

2. He Shall Cooperate With The Investigation And Speedy Trial.

3. He Shall Not Indulge In Any Criminal Activity Or Commission Of Any Crime After Being Released On Bail.

4. He Shall Attend The Court Of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar And P.S. Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar By Tenth Day Of Each Month And His Attendance Will Be Recorded.

Go to Navigation