# Praveen @ Prince Raghav v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 1215
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-04
- **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/praveen-prince-raghav-v-state-of-u-p-44165
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Sections 302 (murder) and 328 (causing hurt by means of poison) of the IPC at Police Station Chhatari,
District Bulandshahr. Advocate Shri Dheeraj Singh Bohra formally filed his power on behalf of the complainant,
which was taken on record by the Court.

Paragraph 3 & 4: The Court heard the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the applicant, the
learned counsel for the complainant, and the learned AGA, and thoroughly perused the case records.

Paragraph 5: The applicant's counsel submitted that the FIR was lodged late on 25.08.2014 via a Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. application for an incident that occurred on 16.08.2014. The prosecution alleged that the
applicant and a co-accused took the deceased to an isolated place, forced him to drink alcohol mixed with
poison, and then brought him back to his house in a dying condition. While the initial cause of death was
unknown, a subsequent viscera report confirmed poisoning.

Paragraph 6: The applicant's counsel argued that this poisoning narrative was an afterthought developed
through legal consultation. They emphasized that on the very day of the incident, the deceased's father had
informed the police that his son had committed suicide at home, based on which the police arrived and
conducted the inquest report.

Paragraph 7: The counsel highlighted that the subsequent FIR named the deceased's brother, Tota Ram, as
an eyewitness who saw the accused forcing the deceased to drink and threatening him. However, in his
statement to the police, Tota Ram completely abandoned this theory, stating instead that he and his parents
learned of the death while working in the fields and were told that the deceased had committed suicide by
hanging, leading them to dial 100.

Paragraph 8: The counsel contended that if the family had actually seen the deceased being forcibly
poisoned and dumped at home, the father would never have reported it as a suicide. Furthermore, the
deceased's sister, Sheetal, was present at the house when the accused allegedly dropped him off on a
1216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

motorcycle, confirming that the father's initial suicide report was based on immediate household facts, not
wild conjecture.

Paragraph 9: The applicant's counsel drew attention to the inquest report, which noted the presence of
semen on the deceased's garments, arguing that the exact circumstances of death remain highly ambiguous.

Paragraph 10: The counsel further argued that the prosecution's story was highly improbable, as a guilty
person would flee the crime scene rather than risk public exposure by carrying a dying victim back to his own
family on a motorcycle. They added that the applicant had been in jail since 18.04.2016, had no prior history
of evading the law, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude early due to heavy pendency.

Paragraph 11: The learned AGA and the complainant's counsel strongly opposed the bail plea. They pointed
to the post-mortem report, arguing that physical injuries on the deceased's feet indicated his legs were
dragging on the ground while being carried on the motorcycle because he was already incapacitated by
poison. However, when pointedly questioned by the Court, neither the AGA nor the complainant's counsel
could offer a tenable explanation for the stark contradiction between this theory and the father's initial suicide
report.

Paragraph 12: After evaluating the arguments, the nature of the evidence, the period of detention already
undergone, the low likelihood of an early trial conclusion, and the lack of evidence suggesting the applicant
would tamper with witnesses, the Court determined that the applicant was entitled to bail.

Paragraph 13 & 14: The Court ordered the release of the applicant, Praveen @ Prince Raghav, upon
executing a personal bond and two local sureties, subject to strict conditions: he must not tamper with
prosecution evidence and must personally appear on every trial date unless speci

## Text

8 All. Praveen @ Prince Raghav Vs State Of U.P.
1215
(2016) 8 ILRA 1215
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 22996 Of 2016

Praveen @ Prince Raghav ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Opposite party

Counsel for the Applicant:
R.P.S. Chauhan, Pradeep Chauhan

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Held -
Paragraph 1 & 2: The applicant filed a bail application seeking release in Case Crime No. 265 of 2014, under
Sections 302 (murder) and 328 (causing hurt by means of poison) of the IPC at Police Station Chhatari,
District Bulandshahr. Advocate Shri Dheeraj Singh Bohra formally filed his power on behalf of the complainant,
which was taken on record by the Court.

Paragraph 3 & 4: The Court heard the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the applicant, the
learned counsel for the complainant, and the learned AGA, and thoroughly perused the case records.

Paragraph 5: The applicant's counsel submitted that the FIR was lodged late on 25.08.2014 via a Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. application for an incident that occurred on 16.08.2014. The prosecution alleged that the
applicant and a co-accused took the deceased to an isolated place, forced him to drink alcohol mixed with
poison, and then brought him back to his house in a dying condition. While the initial cause of death was
unknown, a subsequent viscera report confirmed poisoning.

Paragraph 6: The applicant's counsel argued that this poisoning narrative was an afterthought developed
through legal consultation. They emphasized that on the very day of the incident, the deceased's father had
informed the police that his son had committed suicide at home, based on which the police arrived and
conducted the inquest report.

Paragraph 7: The counsel highlighted that the subsequent FIR named the deceased's brother, Tota Ram, as
an eyewitness who saw the accused forcing the deceased to drink and threatening him. However, in his
statement to the police, Tota Ram completely abandoned this theory, stating instead that he and his parents
learned of the death while working in the fields and were told that the deceased had committed suicide by
hanging, leading them to dial 100.

Paragraph 8: The counsel contended that if the family had actually seen the deceased being forcibly
poisoned and dumped at home, the father would never have reported it as a suicide. Furthermore, the
deceased's sister, Sheetal, was present at the house when the accused allegedly dropped him off on a
1216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

motorcycle, confirming that the father's initial suicide report was based on immediate household facts, not
wild conjecture.

Paragraph 9: The applicant's counsel drew attention to the inquest report, which noted the presence of
semen on the deceased's garments, arguing that the exact circumstances of death remain highly ambiguous.

Paragraph 10: The counsel further argued that the prosecution's story was highly improbable, as a guilty
person would flee the crime scene rather than risk public exposure by carrying a dying victim back to his own
family on a motorcycle. They added that the applicant had been in jail since 18.04.2016, had no prior history
of evading the law, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude early due to heavy pendency.

Paragraph 11: The learned AGA and the complainant's counsel strongly opposed the bail plea. They pointed
to the post-mortem report, arguing that physical injuries on the deceased's feet indicated his legs were
dragging on the ground while being carried on the motorcycle because he was already incapacitated by
poison. However, when pointedly questioned by the Court, neither the AGA nor the complainant's counsel
could offer a tenable explanation for the stark contradiction between this theory and the father's initial suicide
report.

Paragraph 12: After evaluating the arguments, the nature of the evidence, the period of detention already
undergone, the low likelihood of an early trial conclusion, and the lack of evidence suggesting the applicant
would tamper with witnesses, the Court determined that the applicant was entitled to bail.

Paragraph 13 & 14: The Court ordered the release of the applicant, Praveen @ Prince Raghav, upon
executing a personal bond and two local sureties, subject to strict conditions: he must not tamper with
prosecution evidence and must personally appear on every trial date unless specifically exempted.

Paragraph 15 & 16: The Court clarified that any breach of these bail conditions would grant the lower court
full liberty to cancel the bail. It further noted that the observations made in this order are strictly limited to the
disposal of the bail application and will have no bearing on the final merits of the trial.

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

1. This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.
265 of 2014, u/s302, 328 I.P.C., Police Station-Chhatari, District-Bulandshahar.

2. Shri Dheeraj Singh Bohra, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of complainant today, which
is taken on record.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the complainant as well as
learned A.G.A.

4. Perused the record.

5. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the F.I.R.of the case was lodged on the basis
of an application moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.. The incident is said to have taken place on 16.8.2014 and the
application was moved on 25.8.2014 and the prosecution case as has emerged out is that the applicant and
co-accused had taken the deceased to some place where they made him drink Alcohol and also
8 All. Praveen @ Prince Raghav Vs State Of U.P.
1217
administered poison to him. Subsequently the deceased was again brought by accused persons back to his
house where he was left in a pitiable condition and died soon thereafter. Initially the cause of death could
not be ascertained but subsequently the viscera report indicated that the deceased died as a result and effect
of some poison. The contention of the counsel is that all this story of taking away the deceased by the
accused persons and then compelling him to drink or administering some poison is just an after thought
and has been developed through consultation and deliberations and this story does not contain any truth in
the same. In this regard the counsel has laid emphasis upon the fact that the information first in point of
time was given on 16.8.2014 i.e. on the day of incident itself by none else than the father of the deceased
himself and it was on this information that the police had arrived and performed the inquest report of the
deceased. The information that was furnished by the father was to the effect that his son (the deceased) had
for some reason committed suicide in his house. Counsel has also drawn the attention of the court to the
assertion made in the F.I.R. that was subsequently lodged in which the brother of the deceased namely Tota
Ram has been made a witness of the fact that he had seen the applicant and co-accused making the
deceased drink alcohol and when he asked his brother to go back he was not allowed to go back by
accused. Even this was alleged in the subsequent version of F.I.R. that when Tota Ram, the brother of the
deceased, insisted further then the applicant and co-accused gave threat him that he should run away
otherwise he would also be killed. Counsel has further drawn the attention of the court to the statement of
aforesaid Tota Ram in which the aforesaid allegation of compelling the deceased to drink alcohol has been
given up and to the contrary, it was stated by the aforesaid Tota Ram that when he and his parents were in
a field they got the information that his brother Sannu has committed suicide by hanging. It was further
stated that after this an information on number 100 was given on which the police had arrived. Submission
is that it is wholly unthinkable that if there had been any truth in the claim of the prosecution that the
deceased was seen being administered the alcohol by force and then he was carried to his house and was
dumped there in a nearly dead condition then there was absolutely no question for the father of the
deceased to furnish the information that his son had committed suicide. In this regard it has also been
pointed out by the applicant's counsel that the real sister of deceased namely Sheetal was also examined
by the police and she also is said to have stated that she was in her house when the accused-applicant had
brought the deceased on the motorcycle and had left him there in unconscious state and later on deceased
Sannu died. The contention is that it is also clear that the aforesaid sister Sheetal was very much present in
the house and therefore it cannot be said that information of commission of suicide was or could have been
any wild conjuncture of the father. Submission is that actual story is some what very different from what
is now being projected by the prosecution. Counsel has also drawn the attention of the court to the
observation made by the police officer who performed the inquest in which he had noted that the garment
of the deceased indicated the presence of semen. Counsel has tried to submit that it is very difficult to tell
under what circumstance the deceased died. In addition it has also been submitted that if the applicant had
actually administered the poison to the deceased and in case he actually committed the murder of the
deceased then there was no justification as to why the accused should then take the trouble to take the dead
body or the nearly dead deceased on motorcycle and bring him to his house again. The normal guilty
conduct of any accused would be to make his escape good after commission of crime and not to expose
him to the full public view and be seen by the all and sundry carrying the victim with them. Submission is
that the story of taking the deceased on the motorcycle and bringing him back to the house of deceased
after administering him poison is highly incredible story which hardly constitute any legitimate basis to
prove applicant's complicity in the crime. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of
1218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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 18.4.2016 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the
Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant who have opposed the prayer
for bail. Attention of the court was drawn to the post mortem report and it has been pointed out that the
features noted by the doctor indicate that the deceased while being carried on the motorcycle was not in a
position to control himself and his legs were dragging all the way on the ground which resulted in
corresponding injuries on his feet. Counsel has tried to show that when the deceased was brought back to
his house he was virtually dead as a result of the poison that was administered to him by the accused. But
despite being pointedly asked to explain the earlier version of the suicide given by the father, neither the
informant's counsel nor learned A.G.A. has been able to proffer any explanation for the same which may
be accepted as a tenable explanation with regard to the loud inconsistency in between the two versions.

7. 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.

8. Let the applicant-Praveen @ Prince Raghav, involved in Case Crime No.265 of 2014, u/s
302,328 I.P.C., P.S.-Chhatari, District-Bulandshahar 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.

9. 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.

10. 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. Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs Deepak Tandon & Anr.
1219
(2016) 8 ILRA 1219
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Writ A No.- 32311 Of 2014

Rajesh Kumar Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
Deepak Tandon & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shri Prakash Chandra, Shri Vishal Khandewal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shri Puneet Agrawal, Shri Arvind Srivastava, Shri P.K. Keshri

Held -
Paragraph 1-3: Context of the Writ Petition
The tenant filed a writ petition challenging concurrent orders from lower courts that allowed the landlords'
application to release a portion of House No. 18/15 Hastings Road, Tandon Quarters, Allahabad, under Section
21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Before the High Court, the tenant's counsel raised a single legal issue:
a residential building portion cannot legally be released to a landlord for commercial use.

Paragraph 4: Counterarguments by the Landlords
The landlords' Senior Counsel countered that this specific plea was never explicitly argued in the lower courts.
He claimed the tenanted property was mixed-use ("residential-cum-commercial") which exempts it from the
statutory bar. Furthermore, he argued that since the tenant had acquired alternative housing within the city,
the tenant was legally barred from raising any objections against the release application.

Paragraph 5-6: Factual Property Description from the Pleadings
The High Court scrutinized Annexure-5 of the release application, which contained the landlords' own
architectural and textual description of the premises in Hindi. The text explicitly listed the property as
consisting of "one shop, three residential rooms, a courtyard, kitchen, toilet, bathroom, and drawing room."
The Court noted this clearly proves that, except for a single shop unit, the vast majority of the tenanted
property is strictly residential.

Paragraph 7: Acknowledgment of Mixed Tendency Use
In paragraph 5 of their initial application, the landlords acknowledged that after the death of the original
tenant (the petitioner's father), the petitioner continued using the premises both as a shop and for residence.
The Court deduced from this that the single shop room was utilized for business, while the remaining three
rooms, drawing room, and amenities served as the family's home.

Paragraph 8-9: Establishing the Landlords' Commercial Intention
The landlords' pleadings revealed that they reside at a different address (33 Lookerganj) and require the
disputed property solely to expand an existing computer business. Paragraph 20 of their application explicitly