Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22014 of 2021 Applicant :- Parvendar Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ishwar Chandra Tyagi,Kamal Singh,Nirvikar Gupta,Vivek Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yogesh Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yogesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Parvendar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 360 of 2019, under Sections 147, 323, 302/34 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Amroha Dehat, District Amroha.
First Information Report of the present case was lodged on 21.11.2019 by Yogesh Sharma, the elder brother of the deceased Mukesh Kumar Sharma, against the applicant Parvendar, Nirbhay Singh, Shubham, Satveer and Pancham@Nikku, alleging therein that on 20.11.2019 at about 6.00 P.M the deceased was going on his motorcycle. Behind him his brother Adesh Kumar and mother Smt. Gayatri Sharma were also going on a motorcycle to purchase medicines. When Mukesh Kumar Sharma reached near pond, Parvendar the applicant, was coming from other side who was driving a tractor on which other accused persons were sitting. Parvendar hit the deceased from tractor due to which he fell down and then the accused persons assaulted him with iron saria, rod, kicks and fists. He was run over three times by the tractor which Parvendar was driving. His mother and brother exhorted the accused persons. The other persons of the village reached there and with the help of ambulance he was taken to the hospital from where he was referred to a higher centre where the doctor declared him dead.
It is argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that there was no eye witness to the incident. The story of Adesh Kumar and Smt. Gayatri Sharma being eye witnesses of the incident is false and incorrect. It is argued that the inquest on the body of the deceased Mukesh Kumar Sharma was conducted in which there was no reference of any case crime number and as such the same would go to show that the F.I.R. is an ante timed document. It is further argued that amongst five accused persons including the applicant, the co-accused Nirbhay Singh, Satveer Singh and Pancham@Nikku have been granted bail by a common order dated 23.3.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46679 of 2020(Satveer Singh vs. State of U.P.) with Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29651 of 2020(Nirbhay Singh vs. State of U.P.) and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29669 of 2020 (Pancham@Nikku vs. State of U.P.) as all the three bail applications of the said accused persons were connected together, copy of the said order has been annexed as annexure no. S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 13.4.2021. Further while placing para-3, 4 and 5 of the supplementary affidavit dated 1.8.2021 it is argued that the applicant had enmity with Smt. Gayatri Sharma the mother of the deceased. A F.I.R. was lodged by Nirbhay Singh the son of the applicant against the deceased Mukesh Kumar Sharma and Adesh Sharma, under Section 307 I.P.C. being Case Crime No. 243 of 2018 on 5.10.2018 after which as a counterblast Smt. Gayatri Sharma filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.which was dismissed for want of prosecution and then again she filed a complaint before the court concerned which was treated as complaint case being Complaint No. 2469 of 2018 (Smt. Gayatri Devi vs. Nirbhay and others) in which the applicant and his family members were summoned after which they filed a Criminal Revision No. 147 of 2018 ( Parvendar and others vs. State of U.P. and another) against the said summoning order which was allowed by the Sessions Judge and the summoning order was set aside.
It is argued that the said enmity was the reason for false implication of the applicant in the present case. It is further argued that the injuries as were noted by the doctor when the applicant was taken to the C.H.C., Amroha did not in any manner corroborate with the prosecution case. The deceased when brought there was reported to have received accidental injuries. It is argued that same injuries were found in the post mortem examination of the deceased also. The injuries were opined to be caused by hard and blunt object at C.H.C., Amroha. It is further argued while placing para- 6 and 7 of the supplementary affidavit dated 1.8.2021 that previously the applicant was involved in two cases but in both cases, he has been acquitted by the trial court. The applicant was then externed vide order dated 20.7.2016 in proceeding under Goondas Act which was challenged before the concerned Commissioner and the appeal was allowed and the order of externment was set aside and as such the applicant has clean and clear antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 24.11.2019.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in so far as the bail of three co-accused persons are concerned, they were assigned the role of sitting on the tractor and assaulting the deceased with lathi, danda, kicks and fists and even with iron rod. It is argued that Smt. Gayatri Sharma and Adesh Kumar are the eye witnesses of the incident who were travelling behind the deceased who have supported the incident. There is no reason for false implication of the applicant. The post mortem report of the deceased corroborates with the prosecution story. It is further argued that in so far as the inquest is concerned, non mentioning of case crime number therein has no relevance as the inquest was conducted on the information from the hospital while dead body was lying in the mortuary of district hospital. The applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there is specific role of running the tractor over the deceased due to which he received injuries and died.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. There is allegation of his running tractor over the deceased. The deceased was found to have received seven injuries initially when he was taken to C.H.C., Amroha and even in the post mortem report there were eight injuries noted out of which first injury was large hematoma. The other injuries were the same. He had extensive internal damage of the organs and bones of abdomen. There is a specific role assigned to him.
Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 22.12.2021 Naresh