# Rajendra alias Rajjo (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 955
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-05-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3356 of 2006
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-alias-rajjo-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-40708
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-439-Bail
Application-offence under section 302
read with SC/ST Act-Section 3 (ii) (V)-
deceased a poor S.C. boy age 16 yearsmurder by way of strangulation-dead
body hanged to give colour of suicidethe occurrence witnessed by the sister of
deceased Km. Laxmi and Sonu their
statement recorded by I.O. supported
the prosecution story-bluntly murdered
only because the deceased refused to cut
the
varseen-prosecution
story
fully
corroborated by medical evidence-heldnot to be released on bail.

Held: Para 5

It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and
the learned counsel for the complainant
by submitting that the applicant is main
accused. He has committed the murder
of the deceased. The manner in which
the deceased was murdered shows a
high
handedness
of
the
applicant
because all the sisters of the deceased
were confined in a room. Thereafter, the
murder was committed by way of
strangulation and dead body of the
deceased
was
hanged
to
give
a
impression that the deceased himself
committed
the
suicide.
The
alleged
occurrence was witnesses by the sisters
of the deceased. The statements of the
Km. Laxmi and Sonu have been recorded
by the I.O. They have fully supported the
prosecution story. The applicant has
confessed before the police and at his
pointing out the rope used in the
commission of the alleged offence was
recovered.
The
deceased
was
poor
person belonged to a scheduled cast. He
was aged about 16 years. He has not
taken any loan from the applicant. He
was bruetly murdered only because he
has refused to cut the varseem of the
applicant. The prosecution story is fully
corroborated by medical evidence. The
deceased has received anti mortem
injuries and the cause of death was
strangulation. In such circumstances the
applicant may not be released on bail.

## Text

3 All] Rajendra alias Rajjo V. State of U.P.
955
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3356 of
2006

Rajendra alias Rajjo ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri K.K. Dwivedi
Sri S.P.S. Raghav

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri M.L. Jain
A.G.A.

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-439-Bail
Application-offence under section 302
read with SC/ST Act-Section 3 (ii) (V)-
deceased a poor S.C. boy age 16 yearsmurder by way of strangulation-dead
body hanged to give colour of suicidethe occurrence witnessed by the sister of
deceased Km. Laxmi and Sonu their
statement recorded by I.O. supported
the prosecution story-bluntly murdered
only because the deceased refused to cut
the
varseen-prosecution
story
fully
corroborated by medical evidence-heldnot to be released on bail.

Held: Para 5

It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and
the learned counsel for the complainant
by submitting that the applicant is main
accused. He has committed the murder
of the deceased. The manner in which
the deceased was murdered shows a
high
handedness
of
the
applicant
because all the sisters of the deceased
were confined in a room. Thereafter, the
murder was committed by way of
strangulation and dead body of the
deceased
was
hanged
to
give
a
impression that the deceased himself
committed
the
suicide.
The
alleged
occurrence was witnesses by the sisters
of the deceased. The statements of the
Km. Laxmi and Sonu have been recorded
by the I.O. They have fully supported the
prosecution story. The applicant has
confessed before the police and at his
pointing out the rope used in the
commission of the alleged offence was
recovered.
The
deceased
was
poor
person belonged to a scheduled cast. He
was aged about 16 years. He has not
taken any loan from the applicant. He
was bruetly murdered only because he
has refused to cut the varseem of the
applicant. The prosecution story is fully
corroborated by medical evidence. The
deceased has received anti mortem
injuries and the cause of death was
strangulation. In such circumstances the
applicant may not be released on bail.

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

1. This application is filed by the
applicant Rajendra alias Rajjo with a
prayer that he may be released on bail in
case crime no. 8 of 2006, under Section
302 I.P.C. and Sections 3(ii)(v) of the
S.C./S.T.(P.A. Act, P.S. Dauki, District
Agra.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is
that in the present case the F.I.R. has been
lodged by Mahesh Chandra at P.S. Dauki,
district Agra on 7.1.2006 at 9.10 p.m. in
respect of the incident which had occurred
on 7.1.2006 at about 7.045 p.m. The
distance of the police station was about 1
km from the place of occurrence. The
F.I.R. was lodged only against the
applicant. It is alleged that the deceased
Anil was asked by the applicant to cut the
varseem of his field, but the deceased
refused, therefore, he was beaten by the
applicant by kicks and fists prior the
alleged
occurrence.
Thereafter,
on
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
7.1.2006 at about 7.45 p.m. the applicant
entered into the house of the first
informant. The sisters of the first
informant were confined in a room and
closed from outside and they were
extended threat for not making hue and
cry. Thereafter, the applicant strangulated
the neck of the deceased by rope who was
sleeping in front of the room where his
sisters were confined. After committing
his murder he was hanged in a hook. The
alleged occurrence was witnessed by the
sisters of the first informant namely
Laxmi and Sonu from the window and
side of the door. At the said time the first
informant and his brother Munna also
came there, but the applicant by pushing
them ran away from the place of
occurrence. The dead body of the
deceased in hanging condition was found
inside the room by the first informant and
other. The dead body was taken down and
the room of the sisters was open. They
also came out from the room and narrated
the whole story. The first informant went
to the police station along with the dead
body of the deceased and lodged the
F.I.R.

3. Heard Sri S.P.S. Raghav and Sri
K.K. Dwivedi learned counsel for the
applicant , learned A.G.A. for the state of
U.P. and Sri M.L. Jain learned counsel for
the complainant

4. It is contended by the learned
counsel for the applicant that there was no
motive for the applicant to commit the
alleged offence. The first informant is not
eye witness. Even the sisters of the first
informant namely Laxmi and Sonu had
not seen the alleged occurrence because
as per the prosecution version they were
also kept in a closed room. The applicant
has been falsely implicated only on the
basis of the doubt and suspicion. The
applicant is old man aged bout 60 years.
He has never been challaned in any
criminal
case.
The
deceased
had
committed suicide. The recovery of the
plastic rope has been shown from the field
of the applicant whereas the same rope
was used in hanging the deceased in a
room. During investigation the statements
of Laxmi and Sonu were not recorded by
the I.O. The deceased had taken a sum of
Rs.10,000/- as loan from the applicant and
there was an agreement with the deceased
that he will work as a labour at the house
of the applicant and labour charges would
be deposited to final payment. The
applicant demanded the money but the
same was not given and the applicant was
beaten by the deceased. Due to this reason
the applicant has been falsely implicated.

5. It is opposed by the learned
A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the
complainant by submitting that the
applicant is main accused. He has
committed the murder of the deceased.
The manner in which the deceased was
murdered shows a high handedness of the
applicant because all the sisters of the
deceased were confined in a room.
Thereafter, the murder was committed by
way of strangulation and dead body of the
deceased was hanged to give a impression
that the deceased himself committed the
suicide. The alleged occurrence was
witnesses by the sisters of the deceased.
The statements of the Km. Laxmi and
Sonu have been recorded by the I.O. They
have fully supported the prosecution
story. The applicant has confessed before
the police and at his pointing out the rope
used in the commission of the alleged
offence was recovered. The deceased was
poor person belonged to a scheduled cast.
He was aged about 16 years. He has not
3 All] Ram Kumar Gautam V. State of U.P. and others
957
taken any loan from the applicant. He was
bruetly murdered only because he has
refused to cut the varseem of the
applicant. The prosecution story is fully
corroborated by medical evidence. The
deceased has received anti mortem
injuries and the cause of death was
strangulation. In such circumstances 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
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. According this bail application is
rejected.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.05.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE K.N. SINHA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.4689 of
2006

Ram Kumar Gautam

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.M. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Singh
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-S-156 (3)-
Magistrate
being
satisfied
about
cognizable
offence
made
out-being
fracture
in
right
hand-directed
the
Magistrate
to
Register
and
for
investigation-interference
by
the
revisional
court
on
the
ground
of
previous enmity between the partiesheld-illegal and not tenable in the eye of
law-session judge mis interpreted the
law laid down by this court in Gulab
Chand Upadhyay case reported in 2002
(44) ACC-670-court should examine the
genuineness of each complaint on its
own wisdom.

Held: Para 4 and 5

The approach on the fact is quite
erroneous. If there is previous enmity
between the parties that does not mean
that any offence, committed thereafter,
should go un-noticed. There is fracture in
the hand of one injured and it makes out
a cognizable offence. Whenever said
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
discloses
a
cognizable
offence,
the
Magistrate
is
bound
to
direct
for
registration of the case. The law laid
down in Gulab Chandra case (supra) has
been wrongly interpreted. It gives a
guide line to the Magistrate. Suppose, in
a murder case, where all the accused are
known and murder takes place in broad
day light and on inaction of police, if the
complainant approaches the Magistrate
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., whether
his prayer can be thrown away, taking
resort to Gulab Chandra case (supra)
that offence was committed in broad day
light and accused are known, hence case
could not be registered.

This is absolutely misinterpretation of
the judgment of this Court by the
revisional court and the law laid down
did not permit the court to intepret in
such a way. Any guide line given by this
Court
has
to
be
followed
in
the
circumstances of the case. There may be
false type of complaint. There may be
some
complaint
of
civil
nature
or
otherwise or some complaint in which
the cognizable offence is patently made
out. The courts should examine the
genuineness of each complaint and in his
wisdom, should pass a proper order. The