# Singh v. State of U.P., Special Appeal

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 895
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-07-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12752 of 2010
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/singh-v-state-of-u-p-special-appeal-41709
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

2 All] Nar Narain Pandey V. State of U.P.
895
investigating
agency
is
directed
to
proceed expeditiously in concluding the
investigation.

50. It is also made clear that the
observations hereinabove have only been
made in answer to the submissions raised
by learned counsel. The investigating
agency and the trial court are expected to
apply
their
independent
minds
for
reaching their own conclusions.

51. The records of the single judge
C.M.W.P. No. 23250 of 2010, Bhim
Singh v. State of U.P., Special Appeal
(Defective) No. 610 of 2010 and also of
Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 1724
of 2004 which were earlier summoned by
this Court may now be sent back to their
appropriate sections.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.07.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12752
of 2010

Nar Narain Pandey

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Petitioner
Sri Ronak Chaturvedi
Sri G.S. Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Opposite Party
Sri B.R.J. Pandey
Sri R.J. Pandey
Sri Viresh Mishra
A.G.A.

Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Section
439-Bail-Indian Penal Code Section 302Deceased sustained gunshot injury in the
Karkhana of the applicant-his licensed
revolver lying nearby-FIR lodged by
relative of deceased who also claims to
be
an
eyewitness-allegations
that
deceased taken by the applicant from his
premises to Karkhana of the applicant,
where he was shot dead-dead body of
the deceased found there-applicant fled
from
place
of
occurrence-plea
that
deceased
committed
suicide
after
applicant
refused
him
loan-not
sustainable-Applicant held not entitled
to bail-application rejected.

Held Para 6

Considering the facts, circumstances of
the case, submission made by the
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant,
learned A.G.A., the learned counsel for
the complainant and from the perusal of
the record it appears that in the present
case F.I.R. has been lodged by Satish
Kumar Dubey, who claims himself to be
an eye witness, alleged occurrence has
taken place in two parts, first part has
taken place in the premises owned by
the deceased from where he was taken
to the Karkhana of the applicant and
second part has taken place in a newly
constructed
house/Karkhana
of
the
applicant where the deceased has been
shot dead, his dead body was also found
there, according to the bail application
the applicant was present at the time
and
place
of
occurrence,
he
gave
telephonic message to the police station
concerned, according to his version the
deceased committed suicide, but the
applicant fled away from his Karkhana,
he was not present at the place of
occurrence at the time of the preparation
of the inquest report, the dead body was
found on a chair, according to the post
mortem
examination
report
the
deceased has sustained one firearm
wound of entry on his right parietal
region of head, it was having blackening
and charring, active role of taking to the
place of occurrence has been assigned,
the deceased, he was done to death,
inside the Karkhana of the applicant at
896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

that time he was catching hold the
deceased and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case the
applicant is not entitled to bail, the
prayer for bail is refused.

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

1. This application has been filed by
the applicant Nar Narain Pandey alias
Nanhey by the applicant Nar Narain Pandey
alias Nanhey with a prayer that he may be
released on bail in case crime no. 69 of 2010
under section 302 I.P.C. P.S. Gopiganj
district Sant Ravidas Nagar(Bhadohi).

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are
that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Satish
Kumar Dubey on 6.3.2010 at 00.10 a.m. at
P.S. Gopiganj in respect of the alleged
incident occurred on 5.3.2010 at 7.45 p.m.,
distance of the police station was bout 5 km
from the alleged place of occurrence, the
applicant and the co-accused Bridhi Narain
Pandey alias Jajjey Pandey are named in the
F.I.R. as accused, one accused is unknown. It
is alleged that the first informant along with
his family members was residing in the
commercial premises known as Tulsi Chitra
Mandir, Gopiganj. On 5.3.2010 at about 6
p.m. the first informant along with his
nephew Anil Kumar alias Guddu and Umesh
Kumar Shukla were ready to go to Allahabad
to attend a birth day party then the applicant
and co-accused Bridhi Narian Pandey alias
Jajjey came there on a bullet motorcycle who
exchanged the hot talks with his nephew
deceased Anil Kumar Dubey, they were
demanding Gunda Tax/ Rangdari, in the
meantime, they got an opportunity to put the
deceased Anil Kumar Dubey in his Maruti
Zen Car No. U.P. 60A 2442 by availing the
same they proceeded towards Mirzapur
Road, the above mentioned car was chased
by the first informant Umesh Kumar Shukla
and Balram Pandey by boarding themselves
in Tata Sumo vehicle, the above mentioned
Maruti Zen car was seen by them in front of
the newly constructed house/workshop
where it was parked. The first informant
along with other persons reached there and
saw inside the house that the applicant and
one unknown person, were catching hold the
deceased, thereafter, the accused Bridhi
Narian Pandey alias Jajjey Pandey caused
gun shot injury on the temporal region of the
deceased at about 7.45 p.m. consequently the
deceased died instantaneously.

3. The accused persons after extending
the threat and showing weapons escaped
from the place of occurrence. After the death
of the deceased, the licensed revolver of the
deceased was found lying near the dead
body, probably the gun shot injury was
caused by that revolver. According to the
post mortem examination report the deceased
has sustained firearm wound of entry size 1
c.m. in diameter on the right parietal region,
which was having blackening and charring,
its exit wound was injury no.2, having the
size of 1.5 c.m. in diameter on the left
parietal region. The applicant applied for bail
before the learned Sessions Judge Bhadohi
Gyanpur, who rejected the same on
21.4.2010.

4. Heard Sri G.S.Chaturvedi, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Ronak Chaturvedi,
learned counsel for the applicant, learned
A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Viresh
Mishra, senior Advocate, assisted by Sri
B.R.J. Pandey, learned counsel for the
complainant.

It is contended by the learned counsel
for the applicant :
2 All] Nar Narain Pandey V. State of U.P.
897

1. That the prosecution story is false,
concocted and highly improbable.

2. That the presence of the first
informant and other witnesses at the alleged
place of occurrence is highly doubtful, the
manner in which the accused persons came
to the premises of the first informant, and ,
the deceased was taken in his Maruti Zen Car
, is wholly unreliable.

3. That the dead body of the deceased
was found in a workshop of the applicant and
his car was parked in front of that house, the
licensed revolver of the deceased was also
laying near the dead body, belies the whole
prosecution story because if the deceased
was killed by his licensed revolver, and the
accused persons were not having their own
weapons, there was no need to take away the
deceased in the car to the place of
occurrence, if he was forcibly taken by the
applicant and other co-accused persons,
licensed revolver would have been used by
the deceased in his defence but there is no
such story.

4. That the I.O. prepared the site plan of
the place of occurrence on 6.3.2010 and
prepared the recovery memo of one revolver;
four live cartridges and one empty cartridge.

5. That according to the prosecution
version also only one shot was discharged, it
may be discharged by the deceased himself
for committing suicide.

6. That as per allegation levelled against
the applicant, only role assigned to the
applicant is of catching hold of the deceased,
he did not cause any injury to the deceased,
the role of causing gun shot injury is
assigned to the co-accused Bridhi Narian
Pandey alias Jajjey, the role of catching hold
in such a case is not probable.

7. That the deceased has committed
suicide, about which information was sent to
the police on 5.3.2010 at 20.05 hours by the
applicant, which has been recorded in the
G.D. no. 54 at 20.15 O' Clock on 5.3.2010.

8. That the inquest report has been
prepared on 5.3.2010 since 9.30 p.m. to
11.20 p.m., on the basis of the information
given by the applicant. The first informant
Satish Kumar Dubey, Satish Kumar Dubey
and Umesh Kumar are the witnesses of the
inquest report, but they did not make any
allegation, the F.I.R. has been registered on
6.3.2010
at
0.10
a.m.
whereas
the
proceedings
of
inquest
report
were
completed by 11.20 p.m. on 5.3.2010, the
F.I.R. is delayed and it has been lodged after
great thought and consultation, the delay of
four hours in lodging the F.I.R. has not been
explained.

9. That it is alleged that the accused
persons after committing the crime hurriedly
left the place of occurrence whereas in the
inquest report it is mentioned that the gate of
workshop/ house was closed, it shows that
no body witnessed the incident that's why it
has not been specifically alleged that by
which weapon the injury was caused.

10. That the deceased was running his
business in loss, he was indebted, the
deceased had come to the applicant to take
the loan of Rs. 1 lac for the business of his
Cinema on which the applicant shows his
helplessness, then the deceased committed
suicide by his licensed revolver.

11. That the place of occurrence which
has been shown as newly constructed house
is a Karkhana, nobody resides in that house.
898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

12. That the applicant is an innocent
person he has not committed the alleged
offence, prior the alleged incident the
applicant was falsely implicated under
sections 323,504,506 I.P.C. and section
3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act in case crime no.
2216A of 2008 P.S. Gopiganj district Sant
Kabir Nagar in which after investigation final
report was submitted whereas in its cross
case lodged by the applicant charge sheet
was submitted. The applicant is a man of
high status, there is no chance of his
absconding or tampering with the evidence,
he may be released on bail.

5. In reply to the above contention it is
submitted by the learned A.G.A. and the
learned counsel for the complainant that it is
a pre-planned murder, the deceased was
taken by the applicant and other accused
persons in his car, from which he was taken
inside the Karkhana/house where he has
been killed, active role of catching hold is
assigned to the applicant, in such a case
where in an organized manner the murder is
committed, the role of catching hold does not
have lesser importance. The role of catching
hold is probable because the deceased has
been killed by causing injury on the left
parietal region of the head. So far as the
preparation
of
the
inquest
report
is
concerned, it has been prepared on the basis
of the telephonic message given by the
applicant, it is definite case of the applicant
that the deceased had come to the applicant
to take a loan of Rs.1 lac, on showing his
helplessness by the applicant, the deceased
has committed suicide, it means that the
deceased has committed suicide in the
presence of the applicant, the suicide was
committed inside the Karkhana/house of the
applicant, even then the applicant did not
remain present at the place of occurrence, the
inquest report has been prepared on the same
day but neither the applicant nor his family
member was present there, the inquest report
shows that the deceased was sitting on chair
and the revolver was lying on his right side,
which shows that the deceased had not
committed suicide by sitting on the chair, the
injury was caused from a very close range by
some other person and to save the skin from
the criminal liability telephone message was
given to the police station on 5.3.2010 at
8.05 p.m. there was no improbability in the
prosecution story. The prosecution has come
forward with the correct version, the
prosecution story is fully corroborated by the
post-mortem examination report. Due to
presence of the first informant, witness
Umesh Kumar and Balram Pandey at the
time of preparation of the inquest report it
can not be said that F.I.R. lodged
subsequently,
is
concocted
because
according to the inquest report the cause of
death was not due to suicide committed by
the deceased, the Rai panchan shows that the
deceased died due to head injury, the same
opinion was of S.H.O. concerned also, the
applicant is a most powerful and influential
person, in case, he is released on bail, he
shall tamper with the evidence.

6. Considering the facts, circumstances
of the case, submission made by the learned
counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., the
learned counsel for the complainant and from
the perusal of the record it appears that in the
present case F.I.R. has been lodged by Satish
Kumar Dubey, who claims himself to be an
eye witness, alleged occurrence has taken
place in two parts, first part has taken place
in the premises owned by the deceased from
where he was taken to the Karkhana of the
applicant and second part has taken place in a
newly constructed house/Karkhana of the
applicant where the deceased has been shot
dead, his dead body was also found there,
according to the bail application the applicant
was present at the time and place of
2 All] Smt. Chandrawati and others V. Board of Revenue, U.P.
899
occurrence, he gave telephonic message to
the police station concerned, according to his
version the deceased committed suicide, but
the applicant fled away from his Karkhana,
he was not present at the place of occurrence
at the time of the preparation of the inquest
report, the dead body was found on a chair,
according to the post mortem examination
report the deceased has sustained one firearm
wound of entry on his right parietal region of
head, it was having blackening and charring,
active role of taking to the place of
occurrence has been assigned, the deceased,
he was done to death, inside the Karkhana of
the applicant at that time he was catching
hold the deceased and without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case the
applicant is not entitled to bail, the prayer for
bail is refused.

7. Accordingly this application is
rejected.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.07.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ (B) Petition No. 16678 of 2006

Smt. Candrawati & Others
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Board Of Revenue U.P ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.P. Paul
Sri B.B. Paul
Sri P.P. Paul
Sri S.S. Verma
Sri N.C. Nishad
Sri S.C. Verma
Sri S.S. Rajput
Sri R.B. Singh
Sri Vikram Nath

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.
Sri B.R. Verma
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri Ramesh Chandra
Sri Abhishek Goyal
Sri Ashish Gopal
Sri Arun Kumar
Sri V.V. Singh

Constitution
of
India
Art
226-Patta
granted by L.M.C. without following the
procedure-most of the allotees are relative
of village Pradhan-Writ Petition challenge
the order of Board of Revenue writ filed
after 8 years-plea the time consumed in
review
application-not
available-the
attempt to continue their illegal possession
for long period itself disqualify them
seeking interference by he Writ Courtpetition dismissed with cost of Rs.10000
on each of the petitioner

Held Para 23

No other point was pressed. I find no
merit in the writ petitions. Before saying
omega to the case, it is disturbing to
note the manner in which the present
writ petitions were filed. As already
stated above, these petitions have been
filed with considerable delay of years
altogether but without any sufficient
explanation. The petitioners appear to be
clever persons and they tried to install
the proceedings of their ejectment by
filing
review
application
before
the
Board of Revenue and undaunted with
their failure in the review application,
writ petition no.50632 of 2000 and writ
petition no.16678 of 2006 have been
preferred with considerable delay only
with a view to remain in occupation of
the disputed land somehow or the other.
Case Law Discussed
JT. 2010 (6) SC 41;AIR 1993 SC 852; (1994) 6
SCC 620; (1995) 1 SCC 242; AIR 1997 SC 1236;
AIR 1977 SC 781; AIR 1999 SC 2284; AIR 2003
SC 718; (2004) 7 SCC 166; JT 2010 (3) SC 510;
AIR 1994 SC 853