# Raghuvir v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 81
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-09-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17935 of 2006
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raghuvir-v-state-of-u-p-40887
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(i) That an unusual story has been
given by the prosecution by showing that
the first of all deceased Raj Kumar and
the Bablu alias Dhirendra were going to
get their remand from the civil court, Etab
but the court was closed. Thereafter they
were brought to Etah by Roadways Bus
and from the Roadways Bus they were
taken to the civil court, Etah on the
Rickshaws and firing was done by the
applicant and other co-accused but only
deceased had received injuries and no
ether person received any injury. This is
highly improbable that if in one Rickshaw
three
persons
are
sitting
and
in
indiscriminate firing only one person has
sustained injuries. The alleged occurrence
has taken place in some other manner or
the deceased was murdered by the Police
itself but to save the skin from the
criminal liability, the present story has
been concocted;

(ii) That the statements of the
witnesses have been cielaye4 recorded by
the I.O. which are delayed statements, no
reliance can be placed on such delayed
statements;
(iii) That the F.I.R. of this case is
ante-timed. According to the wireless
message dated 17.4.2006, no one was
named as accused;
(iv) That an application has been
moved by the applicant in the court of
learned C.J..M., Etah on 27.4.2006 that he
may be put up for identification by the
Police witnesses and the witnesses of the
locality but the same has been rejected.
The deceased Raj

## Text

1 All] Raghuvir V. State of U.P.
81
cannot be said that the writ petition is
rendered infructuous by efflux of time.

13. In the result, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. A mandamus is
issued to the respondents to consider
petitioner for appointment to the post of
Shiksha Mitra and not to disqualify her
only on the ground that her mother-in-law
is the Gram Pradhan of the concerned
Gram Panchayat, if she fulfills all other
eligibility qualification etc., and pass an
appropriate
order
regarding
her
appointment
expeditiously
preferably
within a period of 2 months from the date
of production of a certified copy of this
order.

Petition Allowed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17935
of 2006

Raghuvir

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri D.N. Wali

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-439Bail-day light murder in Police station-in
heart of city-F.I.R. lodged promptly-role
of firing assigned to the applicantincident witnessed by so many personsheld-not entitled for grant of Bail.

Held: Para 6

Considering
the
seriousness
of
the
allegations made against the applicant
and other co-accused persons and they
have committed the murder of the
deceased in police custody in broad day
light in the heart of the city and the
F.I.R. has been promptly lodged, the role
of firing is assigned to the applicant also
and the deceased had received injuries,
the incident had been witnessed by so
many
persons
and
considering
the
submissions made by both the sides 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. This application has been filed by
the applicant Raghuvir with a prayer that
he may be released on bail in Case Crime
No.233
of
2006,
under
Sections
312,149,148,147 and 506 I.P.C., P.S.
Kotwali Nagar, District Etah.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is
that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged
by the Constable Digvijay Singh on
17.4.2006 at 6.15 P.M. in respect of the
incident which had occurred on 17.4.2006
at 5.30 P.M. The distance of the Police
Station was about 1 kl.mt. from the
alleged place of occurrence. It is alleged
that the accused Bablu alias Dhirendra
involved in Case Crime No.73 of 2006
under Section 60 of the Excise Act and
the deceased Raj Kumar involved in Case
Crimes No.74 of 2006 and 75 of 2006
were arrested and they were taken by the
first informant and constable 97 Rajveer
Singh and H.G. Hari Singh for getting the
remand in the court of learned A.C.J.M.,
Kasganj but the court was closed.
Thereafter accused persons were brought
to Etah by Roadways Bus and they
proceeded by sitting, in two Rickshaws to
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
the court of Etah for producing the
accused in the court, the mother and other
family members were also in their
company. When they reached near the
State Bank, the co-accused Sunil Yadav,
co-accused Prempal, co-accused Balbir
Singh, the applicant Raghuvir Singh and
two unknown miscreants, who were
following the Rickshaw by motor-cycle,
came forward and stopped the Rickshaw
of deceased Raj Kumar and discharged
the shots at him by their rifle and country
made
pistols.
Consequently
after
sustaining the injuries, the deceased Raj
Kumar died on the spot at about 5.30
P.M. The deceased Raj Kumar was_
having enmity due to litigation with the
accused persons and leaving the dead
body of the deceased Raj Kumar and
taking
the
co-accused
Bablu
alias
Dhirendra, the first informant went to the
Police Station and lodged the F.I.R.
According
to
the
post-mortem
examination report, the deceased received
six antemortem injuries in which three
injuries are of fire arm wound of entries
and three injuries are exit wounds. Injury
no.1 was fire arm wound of entry on the
chest, it was having no blackening,
tattooing or charring, injury no.3 was fire
arm wound of entry on left axilla, it was
having
no
blackening,
tattooing
or
Charring, injury no.5 was fire arm wound
of entry mandible, it was having.
Blackening around the wound. All the fire
arm;
injuries
were
of
different
dimensions.

3. Heard Sri D.N. Wali, learned
counsel for the applicant and 1earned
A.G.A. for tile State of U. P.

4. It is contended by the learned
counsel for the applicant:

(i) That an unusual story has been
given by the prosecution by showing that
the first of all deceased Raj Kumar and
the Bablu alias Dhirendra were going to
get their remand from the civil court, Etab
but the court was closed. Thereafter they
were brought to Etah by Roadways Bus
and from the Roadways Bus they were
taken to the civil court, Etah on the
Rickshaws and firing was done by the
applicant and other co-accused but only
deceased had received injuries and no
ether person received any injury. This is
highly improbable that if in one Rickshaw
three
persons
are
sitting
and
in
indiscriminate firing only one person has
sustained injuries. The alleged occurrence
has taken place in some other manner or
the deceased was murdered by the Police
itself but to save the skin from the
criminal liability, the present story has
been concocted;

(ii) That the statements of the
witnesses have been cielaye4 recorded by
the I.O. which are delayed statements, no
reliance can be placed on such delayed
statements;
(iii) That the F.I.R. of this case is
ante-timed. According to the wireless
message dated 17.4.2006, no one was
named as accused;
(iv) That an application has been
moved by the applicant in the court of
learned C.J..M., Etah on 27.4.2006 that he
may be put up for identification by the
Police witnesses and the witnesses of the
locality but the same has been rejected.
The deceased Raj Kumar was a criminal,
he was having multi-cornered enmity.
(v) That in Case Crime No.940 of
2002, under Section 302/34 I.P.C., Rahul
and Anoop were named as accused by
Rajveer Singh. In that case the name of
the deceased also come into light, during
1 All] Deepak Kumar and another V. State of U.P. and another
83
investigation the name of accused Rahul
and Anoop's father constable Vijay Singh
and Shyam Singh, who were posted in
district Etah, were pressurising the family
of the deceased;
(vi) That there is no independent
witness to support the prosecution story
and the applicant is innocent, he has not
committed the alleged offence, he is in
jail since 21.4.2006, therefore he may be
released on bail.

5. In reply of the above contentions,
it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that
it is very serious offence in which the
deceased was arrested by the police and
he was taken to the court for getting the
remand but he has been murdered by the
applicant and other co-accused, the F.I.R.
has been promptly lodged without any
delay and the role of firing is assigned to
the applicant also and deceased had
received gun shot wound of entries and
the alleged occurrence has been witnessed
by so many persons. The applicant has
been named in the F.1. R., he was taken
by the first informant for getting the
remand, therefore his identification was
not disputed. The application of the
applicant seeking his identification has
been rightly rejected by the learned
C.J.M., Etah and the alleged occurrence
has taken place in a broad day light inside
the city, it is grave in nature. In case the
deceased had been murdered in the police
custody and the applicant is released on
bail, he shall tamper with the evidence,
therefore he is entitled to be released on
bail

6. Considering the seriousness of the
allegations made against the applicant and
other co-accused persons and they have
committed the murder of the deceased in
police custody in broad day light in the
heart of the city and the F.I.R. has been
promptly lodged, the role of firing is
assigned to the applicant also and the
deceased had received injuries, the
incident had been witnessed by so many
persons and considering the submissions
made by both the sides 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
dismissed.

Application Rejected.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.09.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 7056 of
2005

Deepak Kumar and another ...Applicants
Versus
State of D.P. & another...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Manu Yadav
Sri I.M. Khan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Nitin Gupta
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482read with General Clauses Act-S.-27Quashing of summoning order-offence
under
Section
138
of
Negotiable
Instrument
Act-Notice
send
through
courier service-held-No authenticity-No
offence
made
out-summoning
order
liable to Quashed.

Held: Para 10