Court No. - 43
Reserved on :- 19.07.2018
Delivered on :- 26.07.2018
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27638 of 2016 Applicant :- Kamran Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Tiwary Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.N. Mulla, A.G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Rejoinder Affidavit is taken on record.
Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A.N. Mulla, the learned A.G.A. for bail in Case Crime No.5/2016 (S.T. No. 318 of 2016) under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar.
Rabia Bano, aged about 55 years had two sons, Kamran (applicant), Imran (co-accused) and a son-in-law Munna Ghosi, a co-accused.
The case of the prosecution is that on 31.12.2015 at about 10:00 AM, deceased Ranjeet Paswan informed his brother / informant that he has received a phone call from Munna Ghosi (co-accused) that his mother-in-law is missing, she is to be traced, hence, he may accompany him to a Tantrik to trace her whereabouts. Ranjeet Paswan left, followed by a telephonic conversation between the younger brother of the informant / Sarvesh with the deceased, wherein the latter informed him that they were at Rawatpur alongwith Munna Ghosi of Rai Barelli, Imran (co-accused), Kamran (applicant) and Sarfaraz and were on their way to a Tantrik, thereafter, mobile of the deceased was on a switch off mode, subsequent attempts to trace the whereabouts of Ranjeet Paswan failed, eventually his dead body was located under the bridge in the morning of 02.01.2016 at Panki Nahar. It was alleged that all the 4 co-accused have committed the murder of the brother of the informant.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the deceased was a resident of a place which was 7 kms. away from that of the applicant, with whom he shared no relationship whatsoever, alleged confessional statement of applicant and co-accused Imran alleging a relationship between Rabiya Bano and the deceased is of no legal consequence, mere motive is of no avail, applicant claims to have no previous criminal history, applicant undertakes not to misuse the liberty, who is in Jail since 05.01.2016, trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future, he be released on bail.
Sri Mulla, the learned A.G.A has strongly opposed the bail on the ground that mere fact that the deceased went at the first call of co-accused Munna Ghosi, strongly suggest that there was a relationship between the two which enticed the deceased. He further submitted that the confessional statement of the applicant and co-accused Imran alleged that they strangulated their mother to death on 26.12.2015 at about 4 AM (Annexure-4) over above the alleged relationship, whereas not even a missing report was filed either by the applicant and co-accused Imran or by her son-in-law, Munna Ghosi (co-accused). The pattern of injuries of both the deceased suggest that they were strangulated in a similar fashion, which is too much of a coincidence, case appears to be of honour killing as both the deceased were involved in a relationship, where age difference is no consequence, coupled with the fact that relevance / admissibility of the confessional statement could only be considered at an appropriate stage, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, AIR 2004 SC 1866, bail is liable to be rejected.
Considering the heinous nature of crime, pattern in which both the deceased were eliminated and the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
The bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Chandra