Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.316 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Bhadokhar, District Raebareli.
Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R., lodged by informant/Ankur Shukla @ Ajitesh Shukla lodged an F.I.R. dated 10.07.2019 at Police Station Bhadokhar, District Raebareli, alleging therein that his hotel/dhaba was under construction near Staya Narayani Inter College, Dariyapur, District Allahabad-Lucknow Road and its construction work was being looked after by his younger brother Ankit Shukla @ Abhishek Shukla and son of his elder brother Saurabh Shukla. On 09.07.2019 both named persons after having dinner went to sleep there. The informant talked them on phone between 10:30 to 11:00 PM. At 01:00 AM. Informant saw Vimlesh Shukla, Manish Shukla, Rajesh Shukla, Bablu Shukla @ Devesh Shukla and Dhiraj Shukla, who were having enmity with the informant, going somewhere by their Scorpio. Informant chased them by his motor cycle. The Scorpio was stopped by them near the construction work at bypass, however, he returned from that place as he was alone. On 10.07.2019, in the morning one Ram Bodh Shukla asked them that where they are going in early morning, they said that what was required that we have done and now there is no fear. Thereafter, informant contacted Ankit Shukla and Saurabh Shukla but they could not be contacted. Thereafter, informant's father himself went to the place of construction where he found dead bodies of Ankit Shukla @ Abhishek Shukla and Saurabh Shukla @ Bauva and tyre mark of Scorpio. In these circumstances, the F.I.R. was lodged against Vimlesh Shukla, Manish Shukla, Rajesh Shukla, Bablu Shukla @ Devesh Shukla and Dhiraj Shukla.
Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the statement made by informant, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. supported the story of prosecution. The Site Plan (Naksha Nazari) was prepared as per version of F.I.R. as also on the basis of the facts and the statement reocrded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of Site Plan, learned counsel for applicant submitted that in the Site Plan marks of Scorpio Vehicle has been shown. However, during investigation, on the statement of one Sukh Sagar Bajpai, taken on 12.07.2019, the name of the applicant came into light and the applicant was made accused in the aforesaid case crime. He stated that Sukh Sagar Bajpai has named the accused-applicant in the crime, in issue, with oblique motive and on account of political rivalry as also enmity with the father of the applicant. The story of prosecution, in fact, is concocted and the applicant has not committed any crime. This is a case of circumstantial evidence and theory of last scene is not established prima facie in the instant case. He further stated that to prove its case, prosecution has also not recorded the statement of sister of Atul Verma. He also stated that prosecution has not shown any reason as to why the version made in the F.I.R., statement made by the Informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been disbelieved. Prayer is to allow the application for bail.
Learned A.G.A., on the basis of counter affidavit, has opposed the prayer for bail. He submitted that Sukh Sagar Bajpai and Pawan Trivedi made their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. against applicant before the concerned authority of the police. The statement of Pawan Trivedi read with Sukh Sagar Bajpai do not create any doubt in the story of prosecution rather the statements indicate that the applicant was involved in the crime, in issue. He also submitted that this is a case of double murder and on pointing out of accused-applicant and co-accused namely Atul Verma, Patiya and Knife, which was used in the alleged crime, in issue, were recovered. The aforesaid weapon used in the crime were sent for examination and as per F.S.L. report, human blood has been found. As per F.S.L. report annexed with supplementary counter affidavit, learned A.G.A. stated that the hair which was recovered, found to be human hair and the recovery memo bears the signature of the accused-applicant as also the persons present on spot.
On this aspect, on query being put to learned counsel for applicant, he on the basis of Mazeed Bayan, stated that on the recovery memo Ankur Shukla and Ashish also put their signatures.
Learned A.G.A. further stated that the deceased Saurabh Shukla suffered six injuries and deceased Ankit Shukla suffered 18 injuries and the cause of death shown in the post-mortem report is hemorrhage and shock due to ante-mortem injuries. He submitted that the injuries, as indicated in the post-mortem report, are incised wound, which is not disputed by learned counsel for applicant, and can be caused by Patiya as also by Knife, which are the weapon used in the crime. He stated that though vague allegations have been made against one Sukh Sagar Bajpai, who has made statement against the accused-applicant, however, no allegation against Pawan Trivedi, who has also named the accused, have been made. Prayer is to reject the application for bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegations made against the applicant as well as severity of the case and taking note of statements of Sukh Sagar Bajpai and Pawan Trivedi as also the injuries caused to the deceased and weapon(s) used in the crime, which were recovered on pointing out by the applicant and co-accused, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly the application for bail is rejected.
At this stage, learned counsel for applicant pointed out that the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have already been recorded before the concerned Trial Court and the pending trial may be expedited as it would be in the interest of justice.
Considering the aforesaid, concerned Trial Court is directed to conclude the pending trial with expedition, if there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 Vinay/-