Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23301 of 2019 Applicant :- Kalicharan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court, is taken on record.
2. Sri Rahul Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel filed vakalatnama on behalf of the informant today, is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Nagendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rahul Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Kalicharan with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 456 of 2018, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Raya, District-Mathura, during pendency of trial.
5. According to prosecution case, for the incident, which has taken place in the mid night of 18/19.06.2018, the F.I.R. was lodged on 19.06.2018 at 12:30 hours by the informant-Jitendra Singh against unknown persons stating therein that on 18/19.06.2018, while Satya Prakash Singh, uncle of the informant was sleeping near his filed to look after crops, some unknown persons shot fire on him which resulted in his death. It has further been alleged that afterwards, the informant came to know that the deceased-Fauji Bhanwar Singh and Sundar Singh were also shot fire by unknown persons. The dead body of all the three deceased were lying at the place of occurrence.
6. During course of investigation, an application regarding the present case was given before the Superintendent of Police, Rural, District Mathura by the informant-Jitendra Singh, stating that his uncle Buddh Singh, who was sleeping near the deceased-Satya Prakash Sngh, saw the incident but due to fear, he did not convey the same to him or any other person. In the aforesaid application, it is mentioned that his uncle, Buddh Singh has informed that in the murder of deceased-Satya Prakash Singh, Chandan Singh son of Chhitar Singh, Anil son of Kalicharan and Gajraj son of Gulab Singh were involved and they were identified by Buddh Singh, uncle of the informant and there were few other persons, who had accompanied them. Another application was moved before the concerned police station by Soor Sen Singh Chaudhary son of late Satya Prakash Singh (one of the deceased) in which the same story was repeated, stating therein that Buddh Singh has informed him about the involvement of Chandan Singh, Anil and Gajraj as well as few other persons in the alleged incident. Buddh Singh, who was sleeping nearby the deceased-Satya Prakash Singh, was eye witness of the alleged incident and has given statement regarding involvement of the aforesaid persons. He has also stated that there was some property dispute, due to which Chandan Singh and the applicant, who never wanted division of the property, have committed the aforesaid offence.
7. Another statement of the informant-Jitendra Singh was recorded in which though he has not taken the name of applicant but he states, the involvement of son of the applicant in the aforesaid incident. Nearly the same statement has been given by Soor Sen Singh Chaudhary and Buddh Singh, who happen to be eye witness of the alleged incident. They have stated that Chhitar Singh had divided his property amongst three persons, namely, Sunder Singh (deceased), Chandan Singh and the applicant. Sunder Singh (deceased) wanted to sell his property and the other two deceased were helping him and taking stand of Sunder Singh whereas Chandan Singh and the applicant were not ready to divide the property in question and wanted to grab the share of Sunder Singh as he was not married. They also speak of the involvement of the applicant in the aforesaid incident.
8. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. For the aforesaid incident, the F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown persons. It is next submitted that the name of the applicant surfaced in the statement of the villagers. There is no direct evidence against the applicant to connect him with this offence. It is next submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and on the basis of suspicion, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.07.2018. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has also vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that heinous crime has been committed in this case, in which three persons have lost their lives. It is next submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. but there is strong motive to commit the alleged incident as he wanted to grab the property of the deceased-Sunder Singh. Buddh Singh, uncle of the informant, being eye witness of the alleged incident speaks of the involvement of the applicant in the present case. An extra judicial confession has been given by the applicant before Dinesh Pratap and Rajkumar in which he accepted his involvement in the alleged incident. Learned A.G.A. has also pointed out that a previous application dated 05.09.2017, which was given by the deceased-Sunder Singh before the S.S.P., Mathura stating therein that his brothers, namely, Chandan Singh and Kalicharan (applicant herein) as well as their wives and nephews were inimical to him regarding the property, which was given to him by his father and always used to fight for the same. Learned A.G.A. has also pointed out that Rajendra and Satyaveer, villager have stated that they heard about the conspiracy which was planned by the accused persons in which the involvement of the applicant is clearly established. There are several other documents which show the involvement of the applicant in the present case. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that the applicant is involved in heinous offence, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
10. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as considering the complicity of the accused, but without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant, thus the bail application is stands rejected at this stage.
11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 4.6.2019 JK Yadav