FARYAD HUSAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the applicant Faryad Husain with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 633 of 2006, under Sections 147, 452, 302, 120-B I. P. C. , P. S. Gajraula, District J. P. Nagar. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Suresh Chandra at Police Station Gajraula on 10-5-2006 at 6. 20 a. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 10-5- 2006 at about 1. 00 a. m. in the vicinity of Mohalla Shivpuri, Gajraula. The distance of the Police Station was 1/2 Kl. mts. from the alleged place of the occurrence. The F. I. R. has been lodged against the applicant and co-accused Suresh, Suraj Fauzi, Rajpal Singh and Dhirendra Jaat. It is alleged that in the night of 10-5-2006 at about 1. 00 a. m. the deceased Smt. Sunita Devi and her daughter Km. Anamika were sleeping in a room, all of sudden they made shrick and hue and cry, on that the first informant, who was sleeping in the courtyard, awoke and saw that the applicant and four other co-accused persons were coming out from the room of the deceased and they ran away from outer gate of the house, thereafter the first informant went into the room and saw the dead-body of the deceased, who was murdered by way of strangulation. The applicant and other co-accused were properly identified by the first informant in the electric light. The applicant and other co-accused committed the murder of the deceased persons because they were pressurising the deceased to withdraw the case in the which the wife (sic husband) of the deceased Smt. Sunita Devi was murdered. Due to that enmity the deceased persons have been murdered. Due to fear and darkness of the night the first informant could go to Police Station but in the morning he went to Police Station and lodged the F. I. R. According to the post- mortem examination report, the deceased Smt. Sunita, aged about 35 years, has been murdered by strangulation and the deceased Km. Anamika, aged about 13 years, has also been murdered by way of strangulation. 3. Heard Sri K. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant : (1) That the alleged occurrence had taken place in the dark hours of the night and nobody has witnessed the alleged incident but in the morning the dead-bodies were found inside the room, thereafter the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged; (2) That there is undue delay in lodging the F. I. R. because the Police Station was at a distance of half kl. mt. from the alleged place of occurrence. The alleged occurrence has taken place in the big town of Gajraula, the F. I. R. is delayed by 5. 20 hours, the explanation of delay in lodging the F. I. R. given by the first informant is not plausible; (3) That the presence of first informant at the alleged place of the occurrence was highly doubtful because he was not regularly living at the house of the deceased. Both the deceased were living as a tenant. The first informant is real Dewar of deceased Smt. Sunita and real uncle of the deceased Anamika. He is highly interested and partisaned witness, no reliance can be placed on such witness; (4) That the applicant and other co-accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of the doubt and suspicion because the husband deceased Suraj Singh Pal was murdered on 16-11-2005 at 11. 00 p. m. , its F. I. R. was lodged by the deceased Sunita on 17-1-2006 at 6. 30 p. m. at Police Station Dhanaura against co-accused Rajveer Singh, Dhirendra Kumar, Dilip Singh, Harishanker Verma, Shivkumar Sharma, Dharampal Singh, Satyaveer Singh Bhati, Suresh Singh, Kunwarpal Singh and Babban who were serving at Fire Station, Gajraula and Amroha and some unknown miscreants. The husband of the deceased Smt. Sunita was also posted at Fire Station Gajraula. The F. I. R. was lodged in Case Crime No. 57 of 2006, under Sections 147, 302 and 201 I. P. C. , Police Station Dhanaura. The F. I. R. of that case was delayed by two months in which the applicant was not named as on accused; (5) That there was no motive and intention for the applicant to commit the alleged offence because in earlier murder case the applicant was not accused; (6) That in F. I. R. , it has been mentioned that the neck of the deceased Smt. Sunita was tied with rope but at the time of the preparation of the inquest report, it was found that the neck of the deceased Sunita was tied with Chunni and neck of the deceased Km. Anamika was tied with rope, thereafter the first informant changed the statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. according to the inquest report; (7) That I. O. recorded the statements of Dinesh Sharma, Satveer Yadav and Tejpal. They stated that they came to know in the morning that the deceased had been murdered in the night. They did not disclose the name of any miscreants; (8) That the applicant was taken into custody and detained at the Police Station Gajraula by its Station Officer on 10-5-2006. The applicant was regularly detained at the Police Station but challaned on 28-5- 2006 but in respect of his detention a telegram was given by his wife on 10-5-2006. Thereafter the applicant was falsely implicated in the present case; (9) That at the time of the alleged occurrence, the applicant was on his duty at Fire Station, Gajraula; (10) That the husband of the deceased Sunita had died accidentally, he was not murdered by any person even then a false F. I. R. was lodged against the co-accused persons in which only evidence of last seen was against co-accused persons and there was no reason of pressurising the deceased to withdraw the case. 5. In reply to above contentions, the learned A. G. A. submits that in the present case two persons have been murdered, who were mother and daughter, the cause of death was strangulation. The applicant has been named in the F. I. R. , he was also serving at Fire Station, Gajraula, the place of the occurrence was near the Fire Station. The applicant and other co-accused persons have been properly identified by the first informant in the electric light. There was strong motive for the applicant and other co-accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased because deceased Sunita was the first informant in case of her husband's murder in which the co-accused Suresh Singh and Dhirendra Jaat were named alongwith some other co-accused persons, they are closed associates of the applicant. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the plea of alive taken by the applicant shall be considered at the time of the trial of the applicant. The F. I. R. has been lodged within 5. 12 hours. The delay has been properly explained, the gravity of the offence is too much, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. and from the perusal of the record, it appears that in the present case the deceased Smt. Sunita was the first informant of Case Crime No. 57 of 2006, under Sections 147, 302, 201 I. P. C. , Police Station Dhanaura, District J. P. Nagar in which her husband Suraj Singh Pal was murdered. In that F. I. R. the co-accused Suresh Singh and Dhirendra Kumar were named accused. There was strong motive to commit the alleged offence because by killing the deceased persons, no witness will dare to depose the evidence against the co-accused of that case. The applicant has been named in the F. I. R. and he has been properly identified by the first informant in the electric light and short delay in lodging the F. I. R. has been properly explained in F. I. R. itself and the applicant is also serving at Fire Station, Gajraula. In such circumstances the life of first informant, who is the sole eye-witness, is in danger because the applicant and other co-accused persons have also committed the murder of the deceased Smt. Sunita and Km. Anamika because deceased Smt. Sunita had lodged the F. I. R. of the case in which her husband had been murdered, her daughter Km. Anamika has also been murdered thereafter and no evidence was left. The chances of tampering with the evidence are too much and the gravity of the offence is of high degree and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused. 7. Accordingly, this application is rejected. .