Court No. - 51 Reserved Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19085 of 2009 Petitioner :- Rajeev Yadav @ Banti Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- P.K. Srivastava,N.K. Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant , learned
A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
The applicant has applied for bail in Case Crime No.
35 of 2008, under sections 302,376,511 I.P.C. and
Sections 3(2)((V) of SC/ST Act P.S. Ashothar,
District Fatehpur.
It is a triple murder case.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant
that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the case. It is further submitted that the
post mortem reports of the deceased persons do not
support the prosecution story. It is further submitted
that , according to the F.I.R. the deceased Jhallu
Shukla was assaulted by the deceased Smt. Asha by
Hansiya( a sharpe edged weapon) but the said
deceased Jhallu Shukla did not receive any injury of
Hansiya and in fact, fire arm injury was found on the
person of the deceased Jhallu Shukla which falsifies
the prosecution story .
It is further submitted that it is unbelievable that the
applicant , who is alleged to have reached the spot to
protect and save his brother , would cause any fire
arm injury to his brother . In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the applicant referred
to the site plan to falsify the story of the prosecution.
Learned counsel for the applicant also referred to the
statement of Dinesh alias Pappu ( P.W. 2) to show
that he was not an eye witness of the scene and in
support of his contention also referred to the
Panchayatnama wherein the Sari and other clothes
were found intact on the person of the deceased Smt.
Asha, as such the story of rape , as alleged by the
witness Dinesh alias Pappu, can not be relied upon. It
is further submitted that in the site plan the applicant
has not been shown on the spot and pointed out other
discrepancies.
It is further submitted that the informant is not eye
witness of the incident and , in fact, no body had seen
the alleged incident and F.I.R. was lodged on
hearsay .
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the bail
application and submitted that in the present case a
heinous crime has been committed by the applicant
wherein three persons have been killed and the
applicant is the sole accused named in the F.I.R and
specific role of shooting has been assigned to him.
It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that the post
mortem reports of all the deceased persons fully
corroborate the prosecution story. In support of his
contention, the learned A. G.A. referred to the injury
report dated 29.2.08 of Ravi Shanker Shukla alias
Jhallu which clearly shows that he was brought to the
hospital at Fatehpur by Laxmi Shanker Shukla and
not by the applicant.
It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that
according to the injury report dated 29.2.2008, the
injury no. 1 was caused by the fire arm and injury no.
2 was caused by Hansiya from its blunt side.
He further referred to the post mortem report of the
deceased Ravi Shankar Shukla alias Jhallu and argued
that indiscriminate firing was made upon the deceased
Srimati and her daughter Smt. Asha and during the
course of firing, Ravi Shankar Shukla alias Jhallu
Shukla also sustained fire arm injuries and succumbed
to injuries. It is further submitted that the nature of the
fire arm injuries caused to Srimati and his daughter
Smt. Asha as well as to the deceased Ravi Shankar
Shukla alias Jhallu clearly shows that the fires were
shot from the same weapon . In support of his
allegation, he also referred to the statement of Dinesh
alias Pappu recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.
wherein he has clearly stated that the applicant made
indiscriminate firing, killing Srimati and her daughter
Smt. Asha and also shot fire at his brother Jhallu
Shukla who sustained serious injuries and ultimately
succumbed to his injuries.
It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that Dinesh
alias Pappu, who happens to be the son of the
deceased Srimati, is an eye witness of the scene .
Learned A.G.A. also referred to the statements
recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses
Bhola Pasi, Virendra Shukla and Dharmendra, who
have supported the prosecution story . It is further
submitted that the evidentiary value of the statements
of the eye witness Dinesh alias Pappu and other
witnesses recorded before the court below will be
considered by the trial court and its evidentiary value
can not be appreciated by this court .
Lastly, it was submitted by the learned A.G.A. that
any minor discrepancy in the site plan prepared by the
investigating officer will not give any benefit to the
accused applicant. He further submitted that the trial
is at an advanced stage. Therefore, it would not be
appropriate for this court to consider the bail
application of the applicant.
It is settled law that in granting or non granting of bail
in non bailable offences, the primary consideration is
the nature and gravity of the offence. In the present
case, the applicant is accused of committing triple
murder. The alleged crime was committed in broad
day light. The court must hear the loud cry for justice
by the society in the heinous crime.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,
and having regard to the nature and gravity of the
offence, no case for bail is made out. The prayer for
bail is declined and the bail application is rejected.
However, the learned lower court is directed to
expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously
, preferably within a period of three months from the
date of production of a certified copy of this order,
keeping in view the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Order Date: 5.1.2010
MLK