ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
(2.) COUNSEL for the applicant submitted that according to the FIR, the incident took place on 02.05.2011 in between 11.30-12.00 noon and FIR was lodged on the same day against 13 persons including the applicant, by Sanotsh Verma, uncle of the deceased Rajeev Verma. According to the FIR version, Rajeev Verma, nephew of the complainant, had love affair with Renu, d/o Subhash Pal, who was a neighbour. Renu was sent to the house of her mausi. Rajeev along with Renu had gone to another place from the house of mausi before 2 or 3 days. However, she again went along with Rajeev. When family members of Renu came to know regarding this fact, they searched for her and also gave threat that they would kill both of them. On 2nd May, 2011, at about 11.30-12.00 noon, Renu returned to her house where she was beaten by them inside the house and informant was present at the house of the deceased Renu. The house of the deceased Rajeev was situated in front of the house of deceased Renu. Thereafter, applicant along with other co-accused armed with lathi-danda and saria caught hold of Rajeev and beaten him and, thereafter, he was taken inside the house of Renu and both were beaten by other co-accused by lathi-danda, saria bricks and suja. Co-accused Suhaga caused injury by suja in her hand. Informant and other persons also ented the house and tried to save them, but they were threatened. Since they were armed with lathi-danda, country made pistol and causing marpeet with Renu and Rajeev, hence the informant and other persons ran away from the spot. Subsequently, after hearing hue and cry, other villagers reached there. Those persons also abused and threatened the villagers. The villagers closed their doors due to terror created from the side of accused persons. Subsequently, Renu and Rajeev were found dead in the house of Subhash, father of the deceased Renu. There were 13 persons implicated in the present case by named along with applicant. Subsequently, the statements of co-accused Shailendra and Rohit were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is a cross-case. The report was not registered, subsequently, an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved before the magistrate concerned by Surajmukhi, grand-mother of the deceased Renu on 06.06.2011 and thereafter, FIR was registered on the direction of concerned chief judicial magistrate on 09.09.2011. Another FIR was lodged by Smt. Dev, wife of Shiv Nath Singh, which was registered on 02.09.2011 on the application moved under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated 23.05.2011. In that incident, one Shiv Nath also received injury and fracture of a leg was found. The applicant is not concerned with the family of either Renu or Rajeev, but he was implicated in the present case merely due to village partibandi and rivalry, just to harass the applicant. The dispute is confined in between parties of deceased Renu and Rajeev. He further contended that considering numbers of accused including the applicant, injury caused to the deceased Renu and Raneev and further considering general allegation, it is not clear that who has caused fatal injuries to the deceased. So far as the applicant is concerned, subsequent assault was made by other accused inside the house and applicant was not involved. He further submitted that there is a cross version also and according to the cross version, the other side came inside the house and beated the deceased Renu. Rajeev tried to save Renu, though they tried to separate him from Renu. In that incident, both sides received injuries and applicant and other co-accused were named in the present case though they were not author of the injuries. According to the injury report, there are only two lacerated wounds on the person of deceased Renu and other injuries are contusion. On the person of deceased Rajeev, there are four lacerated wounds and other injuries are contusion and abrasion. There was no injury caused by suja. The prosecution case was not supported by the injury report. Prayer for bail of co-accused Shailendra and Rohit have already been allowed by another Bench of this Court. However, he is in jail since 04.05.2011, hence he is entitled for bail. If he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the trial. Learned AGA and counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that it is a case of honour killing in which two persons were killed. The applicant is named in the FIR. The FIR was lodged on the same day without any delay. However, so far as the cross version is concerned, the application was given on 06.06.2011 under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on which by direction of the magistrate concerned, the FIR was lodged on 02.09.2011. In that case, final report has been submitted. So far as the bail application of co-accused Shailendra and Rohit are concerned, which were allowed by this Court on the ground that they were not named in the FIR. Subsequently, their names were disclosed in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., hence the case of the applicant is not identical with the case of co-accused. It was also contended that as far as the 3rd FIR is concerned, the time and place in that case is different. That case might have been in reaction. The deceased Renu and Rajeev belonged to different castes and both were beaten and they scummbed to the injuries, hence the applicant is not entitled for bail.
(3.) CONSIDERING the submission of counsel for the parties, nature of allegation and gravity of offence, it is clear that it was a case of honour killing. The FIR in the present case was lodged on the same day without any delay. The applicant is named in the FIR and that version is supported by the witnesses. It is clear that the applicant along with other co-accused caught hold of the deceased Rajeev who was beaten and thereafter taken inside the house of Santosh, father of deceased Renu, where the deceased were beaten inside the house . In view of the allegation and gravity of offence at this stage, it is not a fit case for bail. With these observation, the present bail application is hereby rejected.;