# (2011) 3 ILRA 1101

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1101
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-09-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20472 of 2011
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/2011-3-ilra-1101-42048
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 439Bail Application offence under section
363, 366, 302, 504, 506 IPC-deceased 15
years old girl residing at house of
applicant-killed by applicant and coaccused-to give color of suicide hanged
with
scarf-in
postmortem-four
anti
mortem injury found-considering gravity
of case not entitled for bail.

Held: Para 6

Considering facts and circumstances of
the case submission made by the learned
counsel
for
the
applicants,
learned
A.G.A., counsel for the complainant and
from the perusal of the record, it appears
that the F.I.R. under Sections 363, 366
IPC were lodged against the applicant
and
other
co-accused
persons.
The
deceased was aged about 15 or 16 year
old, she was kidnapped, she was residing
at the house of the applicant but she has
been killed by the applicant and coaccused. According to post mortem
examination report, she had sustained
four ante mortem injuries. The cause of
death was due to strangulation. To give
the colour of suicide, her dead body was
1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
hanged by a scarf (dupatta). The dead
body was found inside the house of
Surendra
Singh,
the
father
of
the
applicant,
where
she
was
residing.
According to her statement, she had
performed
the
marriage
with
the
accused Yatendra @ Bhura, she was
residing in his house but accused Kalla @
Jitendra, elder brother of the accused
Yatendra @ Bhura were extended the
threat of committing her murder. The
gravity of the offence is too much 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.

## Text

3 All Kalla @ Jitendra V State of U.P.
1101
mentioned by the complainant. If the
Magistrate was of the opinion that
investigation was not done in a proper
manner, then the Magistrate could have
directed the Investigating Officer to
conduct the further investigation or the
Magistrate could have treated the protest
petition as a complaint and after recording
the statements of complainant and the
witnesses under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C., the Magistrate could have taken
cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a)
Cr.P.C.

9. The Magistrate has not adopted
any of the courses mentioned above but
has adopted the novel method by
combining the material available in the
case diary as well as affidavits submitted
by the complainant, which was not
permissible. Therefore, the impugned
orders cannot be sustained. Learned
Incharge Sessions Judge has also not
considered this aspect of the case.
Therefore, both the impugned orders are
liable to be quashed.

10. The writ petition is allowed. The
impugned orders dated 16.7.2011 and
9.8.2011 are quashed. The matter is
remanded to the Magistrate concerned to
take afresh decision in light of decision in
the case of Pakhandu (Supra) after giving
an
opportunity
of
hearing
to
the
complainant.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20472 of 2011

Kalla @ Jitendra

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.P. Srivastava
Sri Bharat Bhushan Paul

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Satish Mishra
Sri Anil Kumar Shukla
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 439Bail Application offence under section
363, 366, 302, 504, 506 IPC-deceased 15
years old girl residing at house of
applicant-killed by applicant and coaccused-to give color of suicide hanged
with
scarf-in
postmortem-four
anti
mortem injury found-considering gravity
of case not entitled for bail.

Held: Para 6

Considering facts and circumstances of
the case submission made by the learned
counsel
for
the
applicants,
learned
A.G.A., counsel for the complainant and
from the perusal of the record, it appears
that the F.I.R. under Sections 363, 366
IPC were lodged against the applicant
and
other
co-accused
persons.
The
deceased was aged about 15 or 16 year
old, she was kidnapped, she was residing
at the house of the applicant but she has
been killed by the applicant and coaccused. According to post mortem
examination report, she had sustained
four ante mortem injuries. The cause of
death was due to strangulation. To give
the colour of suicide, her dead body was
1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
hanged by a scarf (dupatta). The dead
body was found inside the house of
Surendra
Singh,
the
father
of
the
applicant,
where
she
was
residing.
According to her statement, she had
performed
the
marriage
with
the
accused Yatendra @ Bhura, she was
residing in his house but accused Kalla @
Jitendra, elder brother of the accused
Yatendra @ Bhura were extended the
threat of committing her murder. The
gravity of the offence is too much 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.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. Heard Shri V.P. Srivastava,
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Bharat
Bhushan Paul, learned counsel for the
applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State
of U.P. and Sri Satish Mishra and Sri
Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for
the complainant and perused the case
diary.

2. This bail application has been
moved by Kalla @ Jitendra with a
prayer that the applicant may be
released on bail in case crime no. 161 of
2010, under Sections 363, 366, 302,
504, 506 IPC, P.S. Eka, districtFirozabad.

3. The facts, in brief, of this case
are that the F.I.R. has been lodged by
Arvind Sharma on 29.6.2010 at about
7.30 a.m. in respect of the incident
allegedly occurred on 17.6.2010 at
about 7.15 p.m. or thereafter. The F.I.R.
was lodged under Sections 363, 366 IPC
against the accused Yatendra, Kalla @
Jitendra, Surendra, Gujji wife of Kalla,
Suraj Mukhi wife of Surendra Singh and
Rishi Babu alleging therein that Km.
Lalita aged about 15 years, the daughter
of the first informant was enticed and
taken away by them. Thereafter, the
dead body of the deceased was found on
19.8.2010. On the same day, the inquest
report was prepared. In the house of the
accused Surendra in a hanged condition.
According to post mortem examination
report, dated 20.8.2010, the deceased
has sustained four ante mortem injuries,
in which injury No. 1 was ligature mark
all around neck, injury No. 2 was over
elue, injury No. 3 was lacerated wound
on right side of the head, back portion 8
c.m. behind right ear and injury No. 4
was contusion on right side face. The
cause of death was as a result of ante
mortem strangulation. The applicant
applied for bail before the learned
Sessions Judge, Firozabad, who rejected
the same on 17.1.2011.

4. It is contended by the learned
counsel for the applicants that the
deceased Km. Lalita was having the
love with the accused Yatendra @
Bhura, who was serving at tower, she
has gone in the company of the accused
Yatendra @ Bhura with her free will
and consent on 17.6.2010. But the F.I.R.
has been lodged on 29.6.2010. The first
informant stated under Section 161
Cr.P.C. that she was kidnapped only by
the accused Yatendra @ Bhura and
Kalla
@
Jitendra,
she
was
not
kidnapped by other co-accused persons
named in the F.I.R. he did not want to
proceed further against them. The
statement of Km. Lalita Devi was also
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she
categorically stated that she had decided
to perform the marriage with the
accused Yatendra @ Bhura, she had
gone in his company with her free will
and consent, she was kept by him at the
3 All Kalla @ Jitendra V State of U.P.
1103
house of his relatives, they performed
the court marriage, they obtained order
not to make their arrest by the police in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12425
of 2010, she was living at the house of
the co-accused Yatendra @ Bhura in
village Nagala Dhansingh. But his elder
brother, accused Kalla @ Jitendra was
extended the threat to commit her
murder. Ultimately, she was killed by
way of strangulation. But there is no
evidence to show that the applicant has
committed the alleged offence. The
deceased was living separately along
with her husband. Except the statement
of the deceased recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. in which she stated that
accused Kalla @ Jitendra was extended
the threat to commit her murder, there is
no other evidence against the applicant.
The dead body of the deceased was not
found inside the house of Surendra
Singh, father of the applicant in which
the applicant was also residing. The
applicant has been falsely implicated
only on the basis of doubt and
suspicion. The applicant is having no
criminal
antecedents.
He
may
be
released on bail.

5. In reply of the above contention,
it is submitted by the learned A.G.A.
and learned counsel for the complainant
that the deceased has passed the high
school examination in the year 2010.
The date of birth was 1.10.1995, she
was a minor girl, she was kidnapped by
the applicant and another co-accused
persons and thereafter, she was killed by
way of strangulation. The dead body of
the deceased was found in the house of
the applicant. After committing the
murder her dead body was hanged to
show that she herself committed suicide.
The gravity of the offence is too much.
The applicant and his brother committed
the murder of the deceased. The
applicant may not be released on bail.

6.

Considering
facts
and
circumstances of the case submission
made by the learned counsel for the
applicants, learned A.G.A., counsel for
the complainant and from the perusal of
the record, it appears that the F.I.R.
under Sections 363, 366 IPC were
lodged against the applicant and other
co-accused persons. The deceased was
aged about 15 or 16 year old, she was
kidnapped, she was residing at the
house of the applicant but she has been
killed by the applicant and co-accused.
According to post mortem examination
report, she had sustained four ante
mortem injuries. The cause of death was
due to strangulation. To give the colour
of suicide, her dead body was hanged by
a scarf (dupatta). The dead body was
found inside the house of Surendra
Singh, the father of the applicant, where
she was residing. According to her
statement,
she
had
performed
the
marriage with the accused Yatendra @
Bhura, she was residing in his house but
accused Kalla @ Jitendra, elder brother
of the accused Yatendra @ Bhura were
extended the threat of committing her
murder. The gravity of the offence is too
much 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
bail
application is rejected.
---------
1104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29913 of 2003

Ram Lal and others

... Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner and others

 ... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Kishor Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Singh
C.S.C.

U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, Section198 (4)-
cancellation of Patta-on ground-non
residing inf village in question-Patta
granted in 1959-after 45 years-No
provision
of
cancellation
on
this
ground-nor any statutory prohibition
from shifting any where else-for either
lease
holder
or
their
heir-heldcancellation order set-a-side.

Held: Para 5

What has been done in the instant case
is pure massacre of justice. Allotment
has been cancelled in the proceedings
initiated after thirty five to forty years.
There is no such requirement that after
allotment neither the allottee nor his
subsequent generations can shift his
(their) residence to another village and
if they do so allotment would be liable
to be cancelled.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned standing counsel
for respondents 1 to 3. Inspite of
sufficient service no one has appeared
on behalf of respondents 4 to 26, the
complainants.

2. The first order challenged
through this writ petition is contained
in Annexure-1 to the writ petition
passed in case no.182 of 1999 under
Section 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Hari
Kishore and others vs. Ramrati and
others. The order has been passed by
Dr. Rakesh Kumar, District Magistrate,
Mahoba on 23.7.1999. Pattas granted to
the ancestors of the petitioners have
been cancelled on the ground that on
personal inspection by the D.M. and on
inquiry from the villagers it was found
that the allottees were not residing in
the village concerned i.e. Bilrahi.

3. It is shocking to note that in the
impugned order even date of allotment
has not been given. Such an order has
been passed by District Magistrate who
holds a Doctorate degree. Against the
order passed by the D.M. dated
23.7.1999 revision no.20/382 of 199899 was filed by the petitioners.
Additional Commissioner, Chitrakoot
Dham, Mandal Banda dismissed the
revision on 24.6.2003 hence this writ
petition.

4. Before the District Magistrate
none of the petitioners had appeared.
The D.M. in his order mentioned that
notices sent to the petitioners returned
with the endorsement that they were
not residents of the village. No further
attempt was made to serve the notices
upon them. In the judgment of the
Additional
Commissioner
it
is
mentioned that petitioners asserted that
pattas were granted in the year 1372
fasli (1964-65 A.D). In para-4 of the