Court No. 20
Criminal Misc. Case No. 7292 (B) of 2009
Sanjay Kumar Nai ...Versus... State of U.P.
Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan, J.
Learned A.G.A. files counter affidavit, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the accused applicant and learned
A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The accused-applicant Sanjay Kumar Nai is involved and
detained in S.T. No. 45 of 2008, Case Crime No. 669 of 2007, under
Section 302 I.P.C., from Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow and
he has applied for bail.
This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the
accused applicant was dismissed in default on 11.9.2009 by Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Rajesh Chandra.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Jai Veer
Singh and his brother Shiv Veer Singh (deceased) who were resident of
Village Sadullapur, Post Hibullapur, Police Station Loni Katra, District
Barabanki, were living in Lucknow sometimes 10 years back prior to the
date of occurrence in connection with their employment. Both were
employed under private employers. The deceased was working at a shop
known as the “Provision Store” situated in Bhootnath Mandir Market,
Lucknow while the complainant was working in Nishatganj, Lucknow
On the date of occurrence i.e., 10.10.2007 at about 9.00 P.M., the
complainant heard that his brother Shiv Veer Singh had been shot dead.
On hearing this news, he went at Faizabad Road and found his brother
lying dead in front of Raymond Show Room. The complainant lodged a
written report about the incident on the same day at 10.00 P.M. at Police
Station Ghazipur, Lucknow. The police of Police Station Ghazipur on the
written report of the complainant, registered a case under Section 302
I.P.C. against the unknown accused for investigation.
The Investigation Officer examined one Sanjay Soni who was
eye-witness of the occurrence and on his statement, the name of the
accused applicant came into light who was working as Security Guard.
The accused applicant was arrested by the Investigating Officer on
10.11.2007 along with D.D.B.L. Gun alleged to have been used by him
in committing the murder of the deceased.
The submission of the learned counsel for the accused applicant is
that the complainant was not eye-witness of the occurrence. He had
lodged the F.I.R. against unknown person. He has been examined by the
prosecution at the trial before the trial court. He in his cross-examination
had stated that when he had gone to the police station, the eye witness
Sanjay Soni was already there at the police station. The police was
asking him about the occurrence. The complainant on the information of
witness Sanjay Soni had lodged the F.I.R. This statement of the
complainant shows that when he lodged the F.I.R., he knew the name of
the accused applicant, even then he did not name the accused in the
F.I.R. The further submission of the learned counsel for the accused
applicant is that the Investigating Officer is said to have recovered the
D.D.B.L. Gun from the possession of the accused applicant in the
presence of the complainant and the eye-witness Sanjay Soni but in the
recovery memo, the signatures of complainant and the eye-witness
Sanjay Soni do not find place; rather the complainant in his statement
has stated that the Investigating Officer had arrested the accused
applicant and recovered the gun from his house in his presence. The
recovery made by the Investigating Officer, prima-facie, appears to be
concocted. At this stage, the involvement of the accused applicant,
prima-facie, appears to be false. The accused applicant, therefore,
deserves to be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application and argued that
although the complainant was not eye-witness of the occurrence but he
has been examined by the prosecution at trial before the trial court. The
trial is on progress. Sanjay Soni is eye-witness of the occurrence. He is
to be examined who will narrate the entire prosecution story. At this
stage, it will be uncalled for to make any comments on the statement of
the complainant. Therefore, the accused applicant does not deserve to be
released on bail.
Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the accused
applicant and learned A.G.A.
The trial pending against the accused applicant is on progress.
Sanjay Soni is said to be eye-witness of the occurrence. At this stage, in
my opinion, it will not be proper to make any comments on the statement
of the complainant. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, I do not
find it a fit case for bail.
The bail application is, therefore, rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial pending
against the accused applicant within a period of four months from the
date certified copy of this order is produced before it.
18.01.2010
Sanjay/