# Chandan Singh Alias Pappu Singh v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 104
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-01
- **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandan-singh-alias-pappu-singh-v-state-of-u-p-44118
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 104
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 23773 Of 2016

Chandan Singh Alias Pappu Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for Applicant:
Diwan Saifullah Khan,V.P. Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party:
G.A., D.K. Singh, R.P. Rajan, Shri Brijesh Sahai

Present application has been moved seeking the release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No.48 of
2016, u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 506 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendments Act, Police Station-Sarnath,
District-Varanasi.

Applicant counsel made submissions that the F.I.R. was lodged by Ashish Yadav, who is the son of the
deceased and also an eye-witness of the occurrence as he claims that at the time of occurrence he was going
along with his father in his Safari car and it was at that time that they were waylaid by certain accused
persons, who started firing indiscriminately upon the father resulting in his death. The next submission is that
the first informant was examined by the Investigating Officer u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. and in his statement given
before the police he reiterated his version given in the F.I.R. But it had so happened that the incident in
question got recorded in a CCTV camera which was fitted near the place of occurrence. It has been pointed
out by counsel that the aforesaid CCTV footage was taken in possession by the Investigating Officer and was
seen and shown to the family members which included the wife of the deceased Smt. Rajwati Devi. Counsel
has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of aforesaid Smt. Rajwati Devi, who is also mother of
the first informant, in which she stated to have identified some other persons as accomplices different from
the aforesaid nominated assailants.

Court observed that after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of
evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the
absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of
the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.)

1. This application has been moved seeking the release of the applicants on bail in Case
Crime No.48 of 2016, u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 506 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendments
Act, Police Station-Sarnath, District-Varanasi.
8 All. Chandan Singh Alias Pappu Singh Vs State Of U.P.
105
2. Heard Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Diwan Saifullah
Khan, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri R.P. Rajan, learned counsel for the informant and
learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Perused the record.

4. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the F.I.R. was lodged by Ashish Yadav,
who is the son of the deceased and also an eye-witness of the occurrence as he claims that at the
time of occurrence he was going along with his father in his Safari car and it was at that time that
they were waylaid by certain accused persons, who started firing indiscriminately upon the father
resulting in his death. Further submission is that the names of the assailants as were disclosed in the
F.I.R. by the first informant were Rajesh Singh @ Rinku, Chandan Singh @ Pappu Singh, Arun
Singh and Vinod Singh. It is further submitted that after receiving the fatal shots, the deceased was
rushed to the hospital where he had been declared dead. The enmity with the aforesaid named
assailants for reasons of election of Block Pramukh was alleged and it was also said that repeated
threats were given by the aforesaid accused eventually resulting in his murder. The next submission
is that the first informant was examined by the Investigating Officer u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. and in his
statement given before the police he reiterated his version given in the F.I.R. But it had so
happened that the incident in question got recorded in a CCTV camera which was fitted near the
place of occurrence. It has been pointed out by counsel that the aforesaid CCTV footage was taken
in possession by the Investigating Officer and was seen and shown to the family members which
included the wife of the deceased Smt. Rajwati Devi. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court
to the statement of aforesaid Smt. Rajwati Devi, who is also mother of the first informant, in which
she stated to have identified some other persons as accomplices different from the aforesaid
nominated assailants. Subsequently when the first informant was again examined by the
Investigating Officer, in this background he drastically changed his version given earlier in the
F.I.R. and also given before the Investigating Officer at the first instance. According to this latter
version, the role of applicant appears to have been ascribed is that of hatching a conspiracy while
the names of all shooters involved in the actual act of shooting were completely changed and one
Harendra Singh, Panna @ Rajan Chaudhary, Santosh @ Raju, Sonu Singh and Udal Bind were
now ascribed the role of shooting at the deceased. In the second version given by the first
informant, the co-accused Arun Singh who was also nominated in the F.I.R. as main shooter and
one Manoj Singh were given the role of exhortation and it was stated by the first informant that at
the time of occurrence the aforesaid co-accused Arun Singh and Manoj Singh had exchanged some
expressions in between them saying that the heartfelt object and desire of co-accused Arun Singh
and applicant Chandan Singh has got fulfilled. Submission is that it is this sentence uttered by coaccused Manoj Singh that has given the ground to the Investigating Officer to charge the applicant
with the offence of hatching a conspiracy of this murder. Counsel has further tried to lay emphasis
upon several contradictions existing in between earlier version of the first informant and the latter
version to which he finally landed up and has tried to submit that the drastic change on the most
fundamental aspects of the case goes a long way to detract the evidentiary value of the first
informant and the nature of contradiction as mentioned herein before is so loud that it robs the
prosecution from its credibility and worth. Contention is that in any view of the matter, in view of
106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

what has been stated by the first informant in his latter statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. the case of
prosecution against the applicant is reduced to only of hatching a conspiracy and the role of shooting
has been withdrawn which was earlier ascribed to him and this carves out a prima facie case for bail in
his favour. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against
the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the
counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been
assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall
faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the
applicant is languishing in jail since 01.02.2016 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the
Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

5. The Court has also heard learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. who have
opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the CCTV footage that
has been taken by the Investigating Officer was not taken in accordance with the rules and is not an
admissible piece of evidence on the basis of which the version of the F.I.R. may be discredited and the
earlier version given by the first informant in consonance with the version of F.I.R. should be made the
basis to act upon against the applicant.

6. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an
overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of
detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any
convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view
that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

7. Let the applicant-Chandan Singh @ Pappu Singh, involved in Case Crime No.48 of 2016,
u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 506 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendments Act, P.S.-Sarnath, DistrictVaranasi be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in
any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his
personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of
justice.

8. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court
below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

9. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the
disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits
of the case.
----------
8 All. Virendra Yadav Vs Ramesh & Anr.
107
(2016) 8 ILRA 107
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.

Civil Revision No.- 120 Of 2016

Virendra Yadav ...Revisionist
Versus
Ramesh & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for Revisionist:
Rajendra Prasad

The revisionist who is a driver being aggrieved by the orders dated 01.11.2014 and 30.05.2016 passed by
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Lucknow in claim petition no. 587 of
2013 has questioned the legality of the impugned orders in the instant civil revision.

Court observed that interlocutory orders passed by a Tribunal unless an alternative remedy is provided for,
and subject to other exceptions, shall be amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India which is akin to revisional/appellate jurisdiction. For the exercise of such a jurisdiction
the purpose of law and justice must seem to have reconciled. The orders passed under Section 24 CPC being
also in the nature of interlocutory orders are also amenable to the constitutional remedy under Article 227 of
the Constitution. Having held that all interlocutory issues arising before the Motor Accident Tribunal resulting
into miscarriage of justice in absence of an alternative remedy under the Special Act, are amenable to Article
227 of the Constitution of India, it is directed that all the civil revisions pending before this Court would be
treated as civil revisions read with under Article 227 and likewise the applications filed under Section 24 CPC.

Court held that challenge to the impugned order dated 30.05.2016 under the supervisory jurisdiction of this
Court is made out and the same is hereby set aside, leaving it open to the Tribunal to consider the grievance
of the revisionist afresh and decide the recall application in accordance with law within a period of not later
than six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

The revision is partly allowed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.)

1. Heard.

2. The revisionist who is a driver being aggrieved by the orders dated 01.11.2014 and
30.05.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court No. 9,
Lucknow in claim petition no. 587 of 2013 has questioned the legality of the impugned orders in
the instant civil revision. By order dated 01.11.2014 an amendment application filed by the
claimant seeking to change the number of offending tractor stated as UP 41 Q 3987 to UP 41 Q