Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 272 of 2021 Applicant :- Chandrapal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Johri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Kuldeep Johri, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 626 of 2019 under Sections 302, 201, 364/34, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit, during the pendency of trial.
As per FIR, which has been lodged by the father of the deceased Prem Shankar on 17.11.2019 his minor son Arun aged about four years went missing regarding which on 17.11.2019 at 5.00 P.M. he gave information at Kotwali Bisalpur. On 18.11.2019 at 8.00 A.M. when the informant went in search of his son, the blood smeared dead body was found lying by side of pond and thereafter the body was sent for post-mortem. It is further mentioned in the FIR that when on 17.11.2019 Mukesh and Chaman Kumar were going to collect wood from the field of Bhagwan Das, they had seen Sudhir Kumar @ Munna co- accused taking away the deceased with him. From the field of the said co-accused Sudhir Kumar @ Munna matchstick, sweet and some other articles of Pooja were found, a pit was also dug and some blood stains were found. Apprehension has been expressed in the FIR that his son after having been murdered, his body was concealed in pond. It is further mentioned in the FIR that the said co-accused used to call occulist, on wrong advice of occulist, he got the son of the informant eliminated.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. The co-accused Mewa Ram, Nand Lal, Uma Shankar, Anju Devi, Riyasat, Santosh Sharma and Ravi Sharma have been granted bail by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 9606 of 2020 vide order dated 2.9.2020, Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 9234 of 2020 vide order dated 1.10.2020, Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 37284 of 2020 vide order dated 1.12.2020, Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 26604 of 2020 vide order dated 14.10.2020, Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.41119 of 2020 vide order dated 8.12.2020, Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.350 of 2021 vide order dated 7.1.2021 and in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 21709 of 2020 vide order dated 22.10.2020, hence parity is claimed, copies of the orders have been produced which are taken on record. It is further argued that the co-accused Om Prakash @ Bhagat has also been granted bail but his bail order has not been provided. He is in jail since 27.11.2019. If released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and has stated that the accused-applicant along with two co-accused namely Anand Prakash @ Guddu and Mahendra had got the articles recovered at their joint pointing out, which were used in commission of murder of the deceased, who was small child of four years and the manner in which the said child was brutally murdered, has been disclosed by co-accused Anand Prakash @ Babu Ji @ Guddu in his confessional statement which is annexed at page-28 of the paper book. The bail application of co-accused Mahendrapal from whose pointing out the incriminating articles were recovered, which were used in commission of the offence, has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.23662 of 2020, therefore, it is argued that the bail should be rejected.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that since the applicant is said to be occulist, who himself is said to have been chanting the Mantra and thereafter he brutally murdered the child with the aid of pointed sooja and in post-mortem report as many eight injuries were found which included multiple lacerations and abrasions. The manner, in which the said child was brutally murdered by the applicant shows that he is not entitled for grant of bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this is not found to be a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a further period of one year from the date of production of a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and verified by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Order Date :- 8.4.2021 AU