Jadunath Singh vs Arvind Kumar

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2024 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NOS. 7961-7963 OF 2023)

JADUNATH SINGH …APPELLANT VERSUS ARVIND KUMAR & ANR. ETC. …RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

VIKRAM NATH Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise from a Common Order

passed by Allahabad High Court on 08.02.2023

while adjudicating three Criminal Appeals-

Criminal Appeal No. 5033 of 2019 (Arvind Kumar

vs State of U.P.), Criminal Appeal No. 5100 of

2019 (Chandra Kumar @ Chandu vs State of

Signature Not Verified U.P.) and Criminal Appeal No. 5102 of 2019 Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2024.04.19 17:58:34 IST Reason: (Rishi Kumar vs State of U.P.). The Applicants

SLP(CRL.) NOS.7961-7963 OF 2023 Page 1 of 12 had sought for suspension of sentence and grant

of bail through these Appeals on the primary

ground that they are in jail for more than ten

years. Also, two co-accused Pramod Kashyap and

Adesh Kumar had been granted bail by co-

ordinate bench of same High Court. By the

Impugned order, the three Applicants- Arvind

Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu and Rishi

Kumar were granted bail during the pendency of

their Criminal appeals, with condition of

furnishing a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- each (Fifty Thousand) along with

two sureties. Appellant is the Complainant and

has challenged the order of granting bail through

these appeals.

3. The three Applicants have filed separate Criminal

Appeals before High Court against order of

Sessions Court dated 06.06.2019 whereby total

SLP(CRL.) NOS.7961-7963 OF 2023 Page 2 of 12 five Accused namely, Arvind Kumar, Chandra

Kumar @ Chandu, Rishi Kumar, Pramod

Kashyap and Adesh Kumar were convicted under

Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 120B of Indian

Penal Code, 18601. They were sentenced for life

imprisonment under Section 302/149 of IPC

along with fine of Rs. 20,000/-. By the same

order two other accused- Monu and Amit Kumar

were acquitted of all the Charges.

4. The brief facts leading to these appeals are as

follows:

4.1 On 11.02.2011, the appellant/Complainant-

Jadunath Singh submitted a Written Report narrating the incident leading to present Criminal case. He stated that in Village Bhogaon there is a plot illegally taken by Arvind Kumar (accused- respondent). He was removed from its illegal possession by Rajvir, son of the

1 In short, “IPC”

SLP(CRL.) NOS.7961-7963 OF 2023 Page 3 of 12 Complainant, in accordance with the order of District Magistrate.

4.2 On the same day around 11.45 AM, Complainant Jadunath Singh along with his son Rajvir, Pawan Kumar, Rawan Kumar, Upendra, Chedalal were sitting together, discussing the disputed plot. At this time, Arvind Kumar, armed with country made pistol (katta of 315 bore), his two sons- Chandra Kumar @ Chandu armed with katta and Rishi Kumar armed with katta along with Amit Kumar, armed with a rifle and two unknown persons with rifles, arrived there in white coloured Maruti 800 Car and immediately opened fire at the complainant and all other persons sitting with him.

4.3 The Complainant and others ran into a nearby building owned by one Harvilas. They were chased by accused persons along with continuous firing. They managed to intrude in the room in which Rajvir and Pawan entered while hiding and escaping from the shots. There the accused aimed at Rajvir and Pawan, shot them dead and thus caused the death of both these victims and also injured Ravita- daughter

SLP(CRL.) NOS.7961-7963 OF 2023 Page 4 of 12 in law of Harvilas, causing injuries upon her.

Thereafter the accused persons fled away. The injured persons were taken to Hospital. 4.4 The Medical Officer on duty declared Rajvir and Pawan Kumar as brought dead. Ravita’s treatment is under process. As per testimony of Dr. Ankit Nikant, Pawan’s death was caused by fire arm injury on his chest and excessive bleeding from the same. Rajvir’s death is caused from excessive bleeding from the 9 firearm wounds found on his body. Two injuries were found on Rajvir’s shoulder and one injury was on his chest.

5. On the basis of the complaint given by Jadunath

Singh (Appellant), FIR No. 1411 of 2011 was

registered at Police Station Kotwali Dist.

Mainpuri under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302,

307, 120B of IPC against five named accused and

two unknown. After investigation Chargesheet

was submitted against all the seven accused.

However, three separate trials were registered

SLP(CRL.) NOS.7961-7963 OF 2023 Page 5 of 12 being Session Trial No. 48 of 2013- State of U.P.

vs Chandra Kumar and three others, namely

Pramod Kashyap, Aadesh Kumar and Monu,

Session Trial No. 321 of 2013- State of U.P. vs

Arvind Kumar and Rishi Kumar and Session Trial

No. 531 of 2013- State of U.P. vs Amit Kumar. The trials were clubbed and the leading case was

ascertained as Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2013-

State vs Chandra Kumar and three others.

6. Trial Court after appreciating the evidence led

during the trial, convicted five accused namely

Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar, Pramod

Kashyap, Rishi Kumar and Aadesh Kumar under

Section 302/149, 147, 148 and 120-B of IPC and

awarded life sentence. It, however, acquitted two

other accused namely Monu and Amit Kumar of

all the charges.

SLP(CRL.) NOS.7961-7963 OF 2023 Page 6 of 12

7. At this juncture it is relevant to note another

criminal case involving some of the present

convicted accused. On 31.01.2013, two accused

viz Rishi Kumar and Chandra Kumar were

produced before Sessions Court at Mainpuri,

while in judicial custody by Constable Ajay

Kumar. The two accused persons requested the

police constable Ajay Kumar to take them out for

attending nature’s call. The police constable Ajay

Kumar went along with two accused persons

along with family members in a Maruti Car. As

soon as they moved out from the Court campus,

the two accused Chandra Kumar and Rishi

Kumar opened fire on said police constable Ajay

Kumar due to which said constable died on the

spot and thereafter his dead body was thrown by

the accused persons in front of the house of one

Munshi Lal. Consequently, an FIR being Case

SLP(CRL.) NOS.7961-7963 OF 2023 Page 7 of 12 Crime No.60 of 2013 was registered under

Section 302 IPC. Charge sheet No. 29 of 2013

dated 27.07.2013 was also filed against eight

accused persons- Rishi Kumar, Chandra Kumar,

Sudha- wife of Rishi Kumar, Babli- wife of

Chandra Kumar, Dharmveer, Monu, Jayshree

and Ravindra Singh under Sections 302, 201,

120B, 34, 224 of IPC, with allegation that all eight

accused hatched conspiracy for committing

murder of Police Constable Ajay Kumar. The

accused Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar

absconded and were later on arrested by STF

from Maharashtra where also they had opened

fire on the police party for which a separate FIR

Case Crime No. 54 of 2013.

8. Thus, Complainant has challenged the impugned

order of granting bail on primary ground that the

accused persons are dreaded criminals as

SLP(CRL.) NOS.7961-7963 OF 2023 Page 8 of 12 initially they have committed two murders and

later co-accused Chandra Kumar and Rishi

Kumar, the sons of co-accused Arvind Kumar

killed a Police Constable Ajay Kumar while he

was on duty during the course of trial. Therefore,

Complainant fears that after being released from

jail, they will hatch another conspiracy for

eliminating the complainant and his family

members.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties

and perused the material on record.

10. The High Court has granted bail taking into

consideration the following two factors:

i) Period of incarceration; ii) Two other co-accused have been granted bail.

11. It appears that before the High Court, the fact

relating to the murder of Ajay Kumar Police

Constable in whose custody the accused

SLP(CRL.) NOS.7961-7963 OF 2023 Page 9 of 12 Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar were produced

before the Trial Court at Mainpuri and further,

the fact that they had absconded after throwing

the dead body of deceased Constable Ajay Kumar

and later on arrested by Special Task Force (STF)

from Maharashtra and during their arrest also

they had resisted and opened fire on the police

party for which a separate case was registered.

Such facts have not been placed before the High

Court. These were relevant facts which ought to

have been placed before the High Court. The

parity mentioned by the High Court in the

impugned order relating to Adesh Kumar and

Pramod Kashyap was clearly distinguishable not

only with respect to their role in the case in hand

but also, they were not involved in the murder of

Ajay Kumar Police Constable.

SLP(CRL.) NOS.7961-7963 OF 2023 Page 10 of 12

12. In our considered opinion, two accused

respondents namely Chandra Kumar and Rishi

Kumar despite their period of incarceration of

more than 10 years would not be entitled to grant

of bail for their subsequent conduct for which

they are facing separate trial.

13. Insofar as Arvind Kumar is concerned, he is not

charge sheeted in the murder case of Ajay Kumar

as such we are not inclined to interfere with the

order of the High Court granting bail to him i.e.

Arvind Kumar. However, insofar as the other two

accused Rishi Kumar and Chandra Kumar are

concerned, their bail deserves to be cancelled.

14. Accordingly, the appeal against Arvind Kumar

is dismissed, and other two appeals i.e.

against Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar are

allowed. The impugned order of the High Court

granting bail to Rishi Kumar and Chandra

SLP(CRL.) NOS.7961-7963 OF 2023 Page 11 of 12 Kumar is set aside. They may surrender within

two weeks failing which the High court will take

appropriate steps for taking them into custody

using coercive measures as are permissible

under law.

………………………………..……J (VIKRAM NATH)

………………………………..……J (SANJAY KUMAR) NEW DELHI APRIL 19, 2024

SLP(CRL.) NOS.7961-7963 OF 2023 Page 12 of 12