# Raju v. State Of U.P - **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 1349 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-08-19 - **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raju-v-state-of-u-p-44227 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail - Murder case - Appreciation of prima facie evidence - Rejection of bail - Bail application in offences under S. 302 IPC and S. 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act - Prosecution case supported by ocular version of informant and corroborated by medical evidence indicating multiple injuries including firearm and sharp-edged weapon injuries - Held, presence of strong prima facie evidence and gravity of offence disentitle applicant from grant of bail. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail - Conduct of witness - Non-interference by eyewitness - Contention that eyewitness did not attempt to save deceased - Held, conduct of witness varies with circumstances and individual disposition - Where assailants were armed with deadly weapons and actively using them, failure of witness to intervene cannot by itself discredit prosecution version. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail - Scope of consideration - Trial stage - Detailed appreciation of evidence to be undertaken at trial - At bail stage, existence of prima facie case sufficient - Court should refrain from exhaustive evaluation of evidence. In Result: Bail application rejected with direction to trial court to expedite proceedings. ## Text 8 All. Raju Vs State Of U.P. 1349 (2016) 8 ILRA 1349 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 41702 Of 2015 Raju ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Madan Mohan Yaduvanshi Counsel for the Respondent: G.A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail - Murder case - Appreciation of prima facie evidence - Rejection of bail - Bail application in offences under S. 302 IPC and S. 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act - Prosecution case supported by ocular version of informant and corroborated by medical evidence indicating multiple injuries including firearm and sharp-edged weapon injuries - Held, presence of strong prima facie evidence and gravity of offence disentitle applicant from grant of bail. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail - Conduct of witness - Non-interference by eyewitness - Contention that eyewitness did not attempt to save deceased - Held, conduct of witness varies with circumstances and individual disposition - Where assailants were armed with deadly weapons and actively using them, failure of witness to intervene cannot by itself discredit prosecution version. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail - Scope of consideration - Trial stage - Detailed appreciation of evidence to be undertaken at trial - At bail stage, existence of prima facie case sufficient - Court should refrain from exhaustive evaluation of evidence. In Result: Bail application rejected with direction to trial court to expedite proceedings. (Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.) 1. Counter affidavit filed by the learned AGA is taken on record. 2. This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 435 of 2014 u/s 302 IPC and Section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Harduaganj District Aligarh. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 4. Perused the record. 1350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 5. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that there is no independent witness of the occurrence and the incident took place in night hours. There was no sufficient light on spot. No identification parade has been conducted by the police and it appears that nobody has witnessed the occurrence and the interested family members have been introduced as witnesses artificially. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no evidence on record to indicate that the first informant, who was the brother, made any attempt to save his deceased brother, while he was under attack, which in its turn would give rise to the inference that probably he was not present at the time of his brother?s murder. 6. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has drawn the attention of the Court to the contents of the FIR, according to which, the deceased was carried by co-accused Kali Charan on the pretext that he was being called by some other co-accused Sanjay and Bhupendra in order to settle the dispute. Further submission is that the deceased was having inimical terms with co-accused Sanjay. It was further pointed out that the first informant, who is the brother of the deceased smelled something foul and therefore, he accompanied the deceased's brother. It was thereafter when the deceased reached the place of occurrence, he found co-accused Bhupendra and Raju (applicant) standing there and then the deceased was caught hold by co-accused Kali Charan, while the applicant and co-accused Bhupendra started making delivery of blows by their knives. Co-accused Sanjay fired shots at the deceased. Learned AGA has also drawn the attention of the Court to the post mortem report which lends the complete corroboration to the prosecution story, which indicates the presence of incised wounds and punctured wounds on the body of the deceased apart from the fire-arm wounds. It was further contended that in a case like this where the accused persons were armed with deadly weapons like knives and fire-arms and where the weapons were used also then in such a condition it is not very unnatural for the witnesses not to have meddled in the incident as that would have necessarily endangered their lives. Moreover, the conduct of any witness depends on his own individual traits and vary from man to man. A more audacious witness may jump in the fray and may risk his own life,while the other who may be timid may take to his heels. Yet another may get dum-founded in utter nervousness. Therefore, if the eye witness informant did not attempt to save his brother, there is nothing such in his conduct, specially when the applicants were having deadly weapons and were also using them, which may be deemed sufficient to disbelieve the witness or doubt his version of occurrence. It was further submitted that final appreciation of evidence can more appropriately be done at the stage of the trial. For the present, prima facie, there are strong circumstances and evidence available against the accused persons, which is corroborated by the medical evidence. 7. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected. 8. 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. 9. However, it is expected that the trial court shall make all sincere endeavours to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournment to either side. ----------- 8 All. Sita Ram Tekriwal Vs Raj Kumar & Ors. 1351 (2016) 8 ILRA 1351 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Second Appeal No.- 1263 Of 2002 Sita Ram Tekriwal ...Appellant Versus Raj Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Shri G.N. Varma, Dr. Madhu Tandon, Shri H.M.B. Sinha , Shri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, Shri Kapil Rathore, Shri R.K. Srivastava, Shri S.S. Yadav, S.S. Sharma Counsel for the Respondents: Shri M.K. Gupta, Shri A.K. Gupta, Shri Pankaj Agarwal Held - Paragraph 1: Nature of the Appeal The present second appeal challenges a first appellate court judgment dated September 18, 2002, passed by the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Gorakhpur. The ADJ's judgment had set aside a trial court order dated November 17, 1983, thereby allowing the first appeal and decreeing the plaintiffs' original suit (O.S. No. 102 of 1980) for the reliefs claimed. Paragraph 2: The Plaintiffs' Case The plaintiffs filed the original suit asserting ownership over 26,000 square feet of land in Purdilpur, Gorakhpur. They had leased it to the defendant (Sita Ram Tekriwal) via a registered lease deed dated February 23, 1972, for a 23-year term to run a cinema. The agreement required a monthly rent of Rs. 931 for the first 15 years (increasing to Rs. 1,131 thereafter) and a premium of Rs. 8,000. The defendant defaulted on the premium-paying only Rs. 500 later under a written acknowledgment-and stopped paying monthly rent in September 1977. Consequently, the plaintiffs terminated the lease via a 30-day registered notice dated March 25, 1980, and sued for eviction, recovery of possession, outstanding dues of Rs. 45,716, and mesne profits. Paragraph 3: The Defendant's Pleadings In his written statement, the defendant admitted executing the registered lease deed, taking possession, and defaulting on the premium except for a Rs. 500 payment. However, he contested the eviction by arguing that the land was demarcated under the U.P. Urban Zamindari Abolition Act, stripping the plaintiffs of ownership. He further claimed that the payments were inherently premium payments rather than rent, which automatically transformed his status into an absolute owner (Bhumidhar) under Section 164 of the UPZA & LR Act. Finally, he contended that the 30-day notice could not terminate the lease because a permanent cinema building had already been constructed on the plot. Paragraph 4-5: Lower Court Trajectory The trial court (Civil Judge-I, Gorakhpur) initially dismissed the plaintiffs' suit on November 17, 1983. On appeal, the first appellate court reversed this dismissal on September 18, 2002, fully decreeing the suit in