Allahabad High Court
JAYSHEEL TIWARIversusUNION OF INDIA
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMIT GOPAL
Holding
In custodial death cases involving police officials, bail is not to be granted liberally; the gravity of the offence, the role of the accused, and the absence of new grounds or valid parity justify rejection of bail.
Summary
The applicants, police personnel including Jaysheel Tiwari, Ramkrit Yadav, Raj Kumar Verma and Angad Prasad Chaudhary, sought bail in connection with the custodial death of Krishna Kumar Yadav @ Pujari in Jaunpur in February 2021. The FIR alleged that the SOG team and police officials took the deceased from his home, assaulted him, looted Rs. 60,000 and a motorcycle, and he died in police custody. The High Court transferred the investigation to the CBI, which charge-sheeted 19 police officials under Sections 302, 330, 331, 218, 120-B read with 34 IPC; charges were framed and trial commenced with 11 of 93 witnesses examined. The applicants contended that the genesis of the prosecution was doubtful, that Section 394 IPC was dropped, that there was delay in trial, and some claimed parity with co-accused granted bail. The CBI and first informant opposed bail, citing the grave nature of custodial death, the Supreme Court's cancellation of co-accused Jitendra Singh's bail, and the applicants' conduct including abscondance. The Court held that custodial death by police officials is a grave offence, that bail should not be granted liberally, that parity alone is not a ground, and that second bail applications lacked new grounds. It rejected all four bail applications and directed the trial court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicants, police personnel accused in a custodial death case, are entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC?
- Whether the gravity and seriousness of custodial death and the involvement of police officials justify denial of bail?
- Whether a second bail application can be entertained without any new or fresh ground?
- Whether parity with a co-accused who has been granted bail can be a ground for grant of bail?
- Whether delay in trial and the right to speedy trial entitle the accused to bail?
- Whether the applicants' conduct in absconding during investigation/trial and possibility of tampering with evidence disentitle them to bail?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 439, 82, 83
- Constitution of India — s. 14, 20, 21, 22
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 218, 302, 330, 331, 34, 394, 452, 504
Subjects
- custodial death
- bail
- Section 439 CrPC
- police custody
- custodial torture
- parity in bail
- second bail application
- CBI investigation
- speedy trial
- police officials
- murder
- criminal conspiracy
- human rights
- Article 21
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28849 of 2024
Jaysheel Tiwari
…..Applicant(s)
Versus
Union of India
…..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Durgesh Kumar Singh, Prabha
Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rahul Srivastava, Sanjay Kumar
Yadav, Vineet Vikram
Along with :
1. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32338 of 2023:
Ramkrit Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another
2. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34114 of 2023:
Raj Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and another
3. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44460 of 2023:
Angad Prasad Chaudhary Vs. Union of India
Reserved on: 14.09.2026
Delivered on: 30.09.2026
Court No. - 76
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. These four bail applications being Bail Application No. 28849 of
2024 (Jaysheel Tiwari Vs. Union of India), Bail Application No. 32338
of 2023 (Ramkrit Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another), Bail Application
No. 34114 of 2023 (Raj Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and another) and
Bail Application No. 44460 of 2023 (Angad Prasad Chaudhary Vs.
Union of India and another) are of co-accused in the same matter and are
connected together.
2
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
2. The bail application of accused Jaysheel Tiwari and Angad Prasad
Chaudhary are the first bail applications. The Bail Application No.
32338 of 2023 of the applicant- Ramkrit Yadav and the Bail Application
No. 34114 of 2023 of the applicant- Raj Kumar Verma are the second
bail applications.
3. The facts common in all the bail applications is that the First
Information Report of the present case was lodged on 12.02.2021 as
Case Crime No. 0038 of 2021, under Sections 302, 394, 452, 504 IPC,
P.S. Baksa, District Jaunpur in connection with an incident which is said
to have taken place from 11.02.2021 to 12.02.2021 by Ajai Kumar Yadav
against S.O.G. Team, Jaunpur, Ajai Kumar Singh S.O., Baksa Jaunpur
and the accompanying persons of the S.O. of Police Station Baksa,
District Jaunpur alleging therein that on 11.02.2021 at about 03:00 am,
the S.O.G. Team, Ajai Kumar Singh S.O. Baksa along with his
accompanying police force came to his house and took his brother
Krishna Kumar Yadav @ Pujari son of Tilakdhari aged about 24 years to
the Police Station in spite of the fact that there was no criminal case
lodged against his brother in any Police Station in the District. His
brother was a friendly person. His brother has been taken by the S.O.G.
Team and S.O. Baksa Ajai Kumar Singh for being falsely implicated in a
case and was detained at the Police Station. Further, in the night at about
08:00 pm, the S.O. Baksa with his accompanying police team and other
police personnels being about ten in number barged in his house and
broke open the lock of the box and took away Rs. 60,000/- and the
articles. On being stopped, they abused the ladies. Again at about 12:30
am, the S.O.G. Incharge and the S.O. Baksa along with 10-12 police
personnels came on a Bolero vehicle and motorcycles and brought his
brother to the house. His brother was not in a position to stand and was
shouting loudly to his mother to save him and was stating that the police
personnels will kill him. They took away a motorcycle which was in the
house. The first informant went to the Police Station but the police
personnels did not let him meet his brother. In the morning, he received
information that his brother has died in police custody. He states that his
3
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
brother has been murdered by the police personnels and requests that
S.O. Baksa be directed to lodge the First Information Report against the
then S.O. Baksa, S.O.G. Team and other accompanying police
personnels for murder and loot and appropriate action be taken. The said
application was addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur.
4. The postmortem examination of Krishna Kumar Yadav @ Pujari
was conducted on 12.02.2021 from 09:10 pm. The doctor found the
following ante-mortem injuries on his persons:-
"a) Contusion present on both buttocks of size 30x20 cm, which is Bluish
Brown in colour.
b) Contusion present in both scapular regions of size 15x8 cm which is
Bluish Brown.
c) Contusion present on left arm laterally of size 10x8 cm which is Bluish
Brown in colour."
The doctor after noting the ante-mortem injuries gave his opinion
as follows:-
"Above injuries are not sufficient for death."
The cause of death was opined as due to shock and syncope as a
result of ante-mortem myocardial infarction.
5. During investigation, the police sought an expert opinion on the
injuries and actual cause of death of the deceased. The Joint Director
Medico Legal, State Medico Legal Cell, Lucknow vide his letter opined
as follows:-
"The cause of death established is shock, that is not due to Myocardial
Infarction but it can be precipitated by vasovegal inhibition or ante-mortem
injuries present on the victim's body especially the big ones which is not
checked in PM examination."
6. A judicial inquiry was also ordered which was taken up by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur being Judicial Inquiry No.1 of 2021
which was inconclusive in so far as the purpose of it was concerned. It
was stated therein that after the detailed inquiry, the conclusion which
comes is that the injuries received on the body of the deceased were as a
result of beating and torture by the police or were received on
11.02.2021 at about 02:00 pm in village Birhadpur due to an accident
4
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
with a motorcycle and then by assault of passer-by. The inquiry thus
concluded.
7. A writ petition being Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 2998 of 2021
(Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another) was filed by the first
informant before this Court with regards to his grievances in which by a
detailed order dated 08.09.2021 a Division Bench of this Court directed
the CBI to investigate the present matter and ordered the transfer of the
matter to the CBI forthwith. The said writ petition stands disposed of
vide order dated 09.03.2022. The said order dated 08.09.2021 is quoted
herein-below:-
"1. Heard Sri Sarvesh Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Pal,
learned Government Advocate assisted by Sri Roopak Chaubey, learned AGA for the
State-respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 and Sri Gyan Prakash, assisted by Sri Sanjay
Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.
2. It is a case of custodial death of a young boy aged about 24 years, namely, Krishna
Yadav @ Pujari. As per FIR No.0038/21, dated 12.02.2021 under Sections 302, 394,
452 & 504 I.P.C. P.S. - Baksa, District - Jaunpur, the SOG team and SO Baksa, Ajay
Kumar Singh came to the house of the deceased on 11.02.2021 about 03:00 P.M. and
took away the deceased with an intent to implicate him falsely and the deceased was
detained at the police station. At about 08:00 P.M. the S.O. Baksa and other
policemen (ten in numbers) forcibly entered in the house of the informant and after
breaking lock of the box took away Rs.60,000/- and other articles and used filthy
language against women family members of the deceased. At about 12.30 P.M. the
incharge SOG and SO Baksa, Ajay Kumar Singh and 10 - 12 policemen brought the
deceased who was not even able to stand and was loudly crying " माँ-माँ मुझे बचा लो
पुलिस वाले मुझे जान से मार देगें।" Policemen also took away the motorcycle kept in the
house and when the informant went to the police station he was not allowed to meet
with his brother (deceased) and in the morning, information was received that his
brother Krishna Yadav @ Pujari died in police custody who has been murdered by
the policemen.
3. On the other hand, the police has developed a story that as per G.D. Entries
Nos.05 and 06, dated 12.02.2021, the deceased was apprehended while he was
driving a motorcycle who fell, received injuries and could not fled away and he told
that in the afternoon of 11.02.2021 he was hit by a motorcycle and the public beaten
him. The arrest of the deceased has been shown at 10:25 P.M. on 11.02.2021. As per
G.D. the deceased was brought to the police station Baksha at 01:30 A.M. on
12.02.2021 and at the same time he was sent for first aid alongwith Sub Inspector
Sunil Kumar Tiwari, constable Manish Kumar and constable Samir Kumar and the
Doctor at the CHC referred the deceased for treatment to District Hospital, Jaunpur
and by the time they reached at the District Hospital Jaunpur, Krishana Yadav @
Pujari died and thus he was brought to the District Hospital as dead. Copy of G.D.
No.05 dated 12.02.2021 has been filed by the respondent no.2 as Annexure C.A. -2
to the counter affidavit dated 01.09.2021 and the G.D. Entry No.06 of even date and
5
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
time i.e. 12.02.2021 time 01:30 A.M., has been produced today by the learned
A.G.A. before us stating that inadvertently these pages could not be annexed with the
counter affidavit. In G.D. No.05 dated 12.02.2021 time 01:30 A.M. it has been
mentioned
that:
"अभियुक्त द्वारा बारबार कराहने पर पूँछने पर बताया कि साहब आज करीब 2.00 बजे दोपहर में
ग्राम विरहदपुर के पास एक मोटर साइकिल से टक्कर लग गया था। राहगीर मुझे उसके साथ
मिलकर मुझे काफी मारे पीटे थे। जिसकी वजह से मेरे शरीर में जगह जगह चोटे आयी है। जिसके
कारण दर्द हो रहा है। गिरफ्तारी की सूचना उसकी माँ को मौके पर ही दी जा रही है। किन्तु गवाही
पर हस्ताक्षर करने से मना कर रही है। दौरान गिरफ्तारी व बरामदगी मानवाधिकार आयोग व
मानवीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के निर्देशों का पालन किया गया अभियुक्त का यह कृ त्य धारा
392/411/414 भादवि का अपराध है। अतः कारण गिरफ्तारी बताकर समय करीब 22.25 बजे
हिरासत पुलिस में लिया गया फर्द मौके पर टार्ची व बिजली की रोशनी में लिखकर पढ़कर सभी
सम्बन्धित के अलामात बनवाये जा रहे है। फर्द की प्रति अभियुक्त को दी जा रही है।"
4. The F.I.R. lodged by the brother of the deceased being the first information report
No.0038/21, dated 12.02.2021 (at 16:35 hours) under Sections 302, 394, 452 & 504
I.P.C. P.S. - Baksa, District - Jaunpur, (in which SOG Team Jaunpur, Station House
Officer Baksa, namely, Ajay Kumar and police personnel of police station Baksa are
named as accused), is reproduced below:
"सेवा में श्रीमान पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर महोदय सविनय निवेदन है कि प्रार्थी अजय कु मार यादव
S/O तिलकधारी यादव ग्राम पकड़ी चकमिर्जापुर थाना बक्शा जिला जौनपुर का निवासी हूँ घटना
दिनांक 11.02.2021 समय 3 बजे दिन में S.O.G. टीम व S.O. बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह मय
हमराही पूरी फोर्स के साथ मेरे घर पर आये और मेरे भाई कृ ष्ण कु मार यादव उर्फ पुजारी पुत्र
तिलकधारी उम्र 24 वर्ष पकड़कर थाने ले गये। जबकि मेरे भाई के विरुद्ध कोई आपराधिक मुकदमा
जनपद के किसी थाने में नही है। मेरा भाई व्यवहार कु शल व्यक्ति थाना मेरे भाई को S.O.G. टीम व
S.O बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह फर्जी मुकदमें में फँ साने के नियत से थाने में बैठाये थे रात्रि 08.00 बजे
S.O. बक्शा मय हमराहियों व पुलिस वालों 10 की संख्या थी आये और घर में घुसकर बक्से का
ताला तोड़कर 60,000 रुपया व सामान S.O. बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह व पुलिस वाले उठा ले गये।
मना करने पर कि महिलाओ को भद्दी -2 गालियाँ दिये पुनः 12.30 बजे रात्रि में S.O.G. प्रभारी व
S.O. बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह मय हमराहियों बोलेरो 10 मोटर साइकिल से 10 से 12 पुलिस वालो
के साथ मेरे भाई को मेरे घर लेकर आये मेरा भाई खड़ा नहीं हो रहा था जोर-जोर चिल्ला रहा था माँ-
माँ मुझे बचा लो पुलिस वाले पुलिस वाले मुझे जान से मार देंगे। और घर पर रखी मोटर साइकिल भी
उठा ले गये। मैं थाने पर गया मुझे पुलिस वाले मिलने नहीं दिये। सुबह सूचना मिली कि पुलिस
कस्टडी में मेरे भाई कि मौत हो गयी मेरे भाई की हत्या उपरोक्त पुलिस वालो द्वारा की गयी है। अतः
श्रीमान जी से अनुरोध है कि S.O. बक्शा को आदेशित करें कि तत्कालीन S.O. बक्शा व S.O.G.
टीम मय हमराहीयों के विरुद्ध हत्या व लूट का मुकदमा दर्ज करें आवश्यक कार्यवाही करें।
प्रार्थी अजय कु मार यादव S/O तिलकधारी यादव ग्राम पकड़ी चकमिर्जापुर थाना बक्शा जौनपुर MO
9984669989 हस्ताक्षर अजय यादव। नोट- उक्त तहरीर व कायमी हे० मो० सुरेन्द्र कु मार द्वारा बोल
-बोलकर अक्षरशः कम्प्यूटर में फीड करवाया गया।"
5. As per the alleged post mortem report, the injuries are as under:-
1. Contusion present in both buttocks of size 30X 20 cm which bluish brown in
colour.
6
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
2. Contusion present in lower scapular region of size 15 X 8 cm which is bluish
brown colour.
3. Contusion present Lt. Arm lateral of size 10X 3 cm which is bluish brown colour.
6. As per post mortem report, the cause of death of deceased was "shock and
Syncope as a result of ante mortem, myocardial and Infarction".
7. Due to custodial death, a judicial inquiry was entrusted in the matter to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, who recorded statements of 16 inquiry witnesses. The
first set of inquiry witnesses are the family members of the deceased, the second set
of inquiry witnesses are independent witnesses and the 3rd set of inquiry witnesses
are doctors and the policemen including the Sub-Inspector Sunil Kumar Tiwari
(IW-14), Constable Manish Kumar (IW-12) Constable Samir Kumar (IW-13). The
statement of inquiry witnesses IW-12 Constable Manish Kumar, IW 13 Constable
Samir Kumar and IW-14 Sub-Inspector Sunil Kumar Tiwari as recorded by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate and incorporated by him in his report dated 25.06.2021 filed as
Annexure CA -12 to the counter affidavit of the respondent no.2 dated 01.09.2021,
are reproduced below :
"साक्षी आई० डब्लू० 12 का० मनीष कु मार, थाना बक्शा ने ब्यान किया है कि-
"8. The IW 16 Kansraj Yadav (an independent witness) has stated before the Judicial
Magistrate on 11.02.2021 as under :
"साक्षी आई॰डब्लू० 16 कं सराज यादव ने बयान किया है कि-
"मैं चाय की दूकान लगाता हूँ। दिनांक 11.02.2021 में मै अपनी दूकान पर था। दूकान के सामने
एस०ओ० बक्शा की गाड़ी खड़ी थी। उस समय लगभग 03.30 बज रहे थे। वहां पर 10-12 पुलिस
वाले थे। वहाँ सौरभ पाठक कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी को बैठाकर लेकर आया और मेरू दूकान के
सामने आकर मोटरसाईकिल रोक दी। पीछे से चन्द्रबदन व अजय यादव मोटरसाईकिल से आये।
कृ ष्णा यादव को पुलिसवालों ने गाड़ी में डाल लिया। अजय व चन्द्रबदन ने पुलिसवालो से पूछताछ
की यह हमें नहीं मालूम है।
कृ ष्णा यादव से मेरी दूकान के सामने किसी ने मारपीट नही की थी। वे लोग उसे लेकर वहां से चले
गये थे। अगले दिन मुझे पता चला कि कृ ष्णा यादव की मृत्यु हो गयी है। मेरे सामने कृ ष्णा यादव से
किसी ने कोई मारपीट नही की थी। मुझे इसके अलावा और कोई जानकारी नही है।"
9. IW-2 (Smt. Satta mother of the deceased) and IW-3 (Ajay Kumar Yadav informant
and brother of the deceased) and IW-4 (Pradip Yadav, brother of the deceased) have
stated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate as under:
"साक्षी आई॰डब्लू० 2 श्रीमती सत्ता ने बयान किया है कि-
"मेरे तीन लड़के थे। बडे का नाम अजय यादव, दूसरे बेटे का नाम कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी तथा छोटे बेटे
का प्रदीप यादव है। सौरव पंडित मेरे घर आये थे। तारीख याद नही है। बोले कि बक्शा के दरोगा जी
कृ ष्णा यादव को बुलाये है। 03.00 बजे सांय कृ ष्णा यादव को सौरव पंडित अपनी गाडी पर बैठाकर
ले गये थे। अजय यादव व गांव के चन्द्रबदन को मैं थाने पर भेजी थी, कि क्या बात है जो कृ ष्णा
यादव को पुलिस बुलायी है। फिर रात में 08.00 बजे 10-12 पुलिस वाले जिसमें कु छ सादी वर्दी में थे,
मेरे घर आये और घर में तोड़-फोड करने लगे। पेटी का ताला तोडकर 60,000/- रूपये लूट लिये। मैनें
रोकना चाहा तो मुझे घसीटकर बाहर कर दिया। पुलिस वाले लूटामार करके 60,000/- रूपये लूट कर
चले गये। रात मैं 12.30 बजे पुलिस वाले मेरे लड़के कृ ष्णा यादव को जिसको बहुत मारपीट रखा था
को लेकर मेरे घर आये और कहा कि डेढ लाख रुपया दो नही तो तुम्हारे लड़के को जान से मार देंगे।
7
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
मैनें कहा कि मैं पैसा नही दे सकती। फिर पुलिस वाले मेरे लड़के को लेकर वापिस चले गये। अगले
दिन सुबह 05.00 बजे पता चला कि कृ ष्णा की मृत्यु हो गयी है। मेरे घर में मेरे सामने कृ ष्णा यादव
को पुलिस वालो ने नही मारा था परंतु वह बुरी चोटिल था।"
दिनांक 11.02.2021 को रात्रि गश्त में था। रात्रि 10.25 से रात्रि गश्त में ड्यूटी में था। मैं एस०आई०
सुनील कु मार तिवारी के साथ था व हमराही का० समीर कु मार के साथ रात्रि गश्त की ड्यूटी में था।
रात्रि 01.30 से पौने 2.00 के बीच थाने से फोन आया और हम लोगों को थाने पर बुलाया गया। थाने
पर जाकर पूछने पर हम लोगों को बताया कि किसी मुलजिम की तबीयत खराब हो गयी है , उसको
अस्पताल जाना है। मुलजिम का नाम एस०एच०ओ० साहब ने दरोगा जी को बताया था कि उसका
नाम कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी है और यह भी बताया था कि कि इसके पेट में दर्द हो रहा है। फिर रात्रि
दो बजे के लगभग मैं व एस०आई० सुनील कु मार तिवारी व का० समीर कु मार द्वारा मुलजिम को
प्राथमिक स्वास्थ्य के न्द्र नौपेड़वा ले जाया गया। मैं कृ ष्णा यादव के शरीर पर कोई चोट नहीं देखा।
कृ ष्णा यादव ने ऐसा कोई कथन नही किया था कि उसके साथ किसी पुलिसकर्मी ने मारपीट की है।
अस्पताल थाने से लगभग दो कि०मी० की दूरी पर है। अस्पताल से डाक्टर साहब ने कृ ष्णा यादव को
जिला अस्पताल रेफर कर दिया था। उसकी तबीयत उस समय काफी खराब थी परन्तु वह मार पीट
किये जाने की कोई बात या शिकायत नही कर रहा था। सामुदायिक चिकित्सालय से कृ ष्णा यादव
को जिला अस्पताल एं बुलेन्स द्वारा ले जाया गया था। मैं जिला अस्पताल नही गया था।"
साक्षी आई० डब्लू० 13 का० समीर कु मार, थाना बक्शा ने बयान किया है कि-
"दिनांक 11.02.2021 को रात्रि में मैं एस०आई० सुनील कु मार तिवारी व हमराही का० मनीष कु मार
के साथ रात्रि गश्त में था कि रात्रि 01.30 से पौने 2.00 के बीच थाने से फोन आया और हम लोगों को
थाने पर बुलाया गया। थाने पर जाकर पूछने पर हम लोगों को बताया कि किसी मुलजिम की तबीयत
खराब हो गयी है, उसको अस्पताल जाना है। मुलजिम का नाम एस०एच०ओ० साहब ने दरोगा जी
को बताया था कि उसका नाम कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी है और यह भी बताया था कि इसके पेट में दर्द हो
रहा है। फिर रात्रि दो बजे के लगभग मुलजिम को मेरे एस०आई० सुनील कु मार तिवारी व का० मनीष
कु मार द्वारा प्राथमिक स्वास्थ्य के न्द्र नौपेडवा ले जाया गया। मैनें कृ ष्णा यादव के शरीर पर कोई चोट
नहीं देखी। कृ ष्णा यादव ने ऐसा कोई कथन नही किया था कि उसके साथ किसी पुलिसकर्मी ने
मारपीट की है। अस्पताल थाने से मात्र दो कि०मी० की दूरी पर है। अस्पताल से डाक्टर साहब ने
कृ ष्णा यादव को जिला अस्पताल रेफर कर दिया था। उसकी तबीयत उस समय काफी खराब थी।
परंतु वह मारपीट किये जाने की कोई बात या शिकायत नही कर रहा था। सामुदायिक चिकित्सालय
से कृ ष्णा यादव को जिला अस्पताल एं बुलेन्स द्वारा ले जाया गया था। मैं जिला अस्पताल नही गया
था। वही से थाने वापस आ गया था।"
साक्षी आई० डब्लू० 14 उपनिरीक्षक सुनील कु मार तिवारी, थाना बदशा ने बयान किया है कि-
"दिनांक 11.02.2021 को थाना बक्शा पर रात्रि अधिकारी के रूप में मेरी ड्यूटी थी। मैं अपने
हमराहियों का० मनीष कु मार व का॰समीर कु मार के साथ लगभग 10.40 बजे थाने से रवाना होकर
रात्रि गश्त में भ्रमण पर था कि रात्रि 01.30 से पौने 2.00 के बीच थाने से फोन आया और हम लोगों
को थाने पर बुलाया गया। थाने पर जाकर पूछने पर हम लोगों को बताया कि किसी मुलजिम की
तबीयत खराब हो गयी है, उसको अस्पताल जाना है। थानाध्यक्ष महोदय से पूछने पर उन्होनें बताया
मुलजिम का नाम कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी है और यह भी बताया था कि इसके पेट में दर्द हो रहा है।
फिर तुरंत ही मैं उपनिरीक्षक अपने हमराहियों के साथ मुलजिम कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी को लेकर
प्राथमिक स्वास्थ के न्द्र नौपेडवा गये। जहाँ पर वह स्वंय ही गाड़ी से उतर कर अस्पताल के अंदर गया
था तथा डाक्टर साहब द्वारा उसको देखा गया व उसका इलाज किया गया। मैंनें मुलजिम कृ ष्णा
यादव उर्फ पुजारी के शरीर पर कोई चोट व खरोंच नही देखा था तथा उसने मुझसे व मेरे हमराहियों
8
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
से भी कोई मारपीट, चोट खरोंच का जिक्र नही किया था। डाक्टर साहब द्वारा जब उससे पूछा गया
तो उसने बताया था कि पेट में दर्द हो रहा है। यह बात मैनें अस्पताल में उसके मुँह से सुना था।
अस्पताल थाने से करीब दो किलोमीटर की दूरी पर है। डाक्टर साहब ने वहाँ पर मौजूद किसी अन्य
व्यक्ति से 108 नम्बर पर फोन करवाया था तथा बताया कि इसकी तबीयत खराब है, इसको जिला
चिकित्सालय रेफर किया जा रहा है। तुरंत ही फोन करने पर 108 एं बुलेंन्स सी०एच०सी० नौपेडवा पर
आयी व कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी को जिला चिकित्सालय जौनपुर लेकर गयी थी। लेकिन मैं
थानाध्यक्ष महोदय को सारी बात बताकर वापस रात्रि गश्त भ्रमण हेतु थाना क्षेत्र चला गया था।"
8. The IW 16 Kansraj Yadav (an independent witness) has stated before the Judicial
Magistrate on 11.02.2021 as under :
"साक्षी आई॰डब्लू० 16 कं सराज यादव ने बयान किया है कि-
"मैं चाय की दूकान लगाता हूँ। दिनांक 11.02.2021 में मै अपनी दूकान पर था। दूकान के सामने
एस०ओ० बक्शा की गाड़ी खड़ी थी। उस समय लगभग 03.30 बज रहे थे। वहां पर 10-12 पुलिस
वाले थे। वहाँ सौरभ पाठक कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी को बैठाकर लेकर आया और मेरू दूकान के
सामने आकर मोटरसाईकिल रोक दी। पीछे से चन्द्रबदन व अजय यादव मोटरसाईकिल से आये।
कृ ष्णा यादव को पुलिसवालों ने गाड़ी में डाल लिया। अजय व चन्द्रबदन ने पुलिसवालो से पूछताछ
की यह हमें नहीं मालूम है। कृ ष्णा यादव से मेरी दूकान के सामने किसी ने मारपीट नही की थी। वे
लोग उसे लेकर वहां से चले गये थे। अगले दिन मुझे पता चला कि कृ ष्णा यादव की मृत्यु हो गयी है।
मेरे सामने कृ ष्णा यादव से किसी ने कोई मारपीट नही की थी। मुझे इसके अलावा और कोई
जानकारी नही है।"
9. IW-2 (Smt. Satta mother of the deceased) and IW-3 (Ajay Kumar Yadav informant
and brother of the deceased) and IW-4 (Pradip Yadav, brother of the deceased) have
stated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate as under:
"साक्षी आई॰डब्लू० 2 श्रीमती सत्ता ने बयान किया है कि-
"मेरे तीन लड़के थे। बडे का नाम अजय यादव, दूसरे बेटे का नाम कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी तथा छोटे बेटे
का प्रदीप यादव है। सौरव पंडित मेरे घर आये थे। तारीख याद नही है। बोले कि बक्शा के दरोगा जी
कृ ष्णा यादव को बुलाये है। 03.00 बजे सांय कृ ष्णा यादव को सौरव पंडित अपनी गाडी पर बैठाकर
ले गये थे। अजय यादव व गांव के चन्द्रबदन को मैं थाने पर भेजी थी, कि क्या बात है जो कृ ष्णा
यादव को पुलिस बुलायी है। फिर रात में 08.00 बजे 10-12 पुलिस वाले जिसमें कु छ सादी वर्दी में थे,
मेरे घर आये और घर में तोड़-फोड करने लगे। पेटी का ताला तोडकर 60,000/- रूपये लूट लिये। मैनें
रोकना चाहा तो मुझे घसीटकर बाहर कर दिया। पुलिस वाले लूटामार करके 60,000/- रूपये लूट कर
चले गये। रात मैं 12.30 बजे पुलिस वाले मेरे लड़के कृ ष्णा यादव को जिसको बहुत मारपीट रखा था
को लेकर मेरे घर आये और कहा कि डेढ लाख रुपया दो नही तो तुम्हारे लड़के को जान से मार देंगे।
मैनें कहा कि मैं पैसा नही दे सकती। फिर पुलिस वाले मेरे लड़के को लेकर वापिस चले गये। अगले
दिन सुबह 05.00 बजे पता चला कि कृ ष्णा की मृत्यु हो गयी है। मेरे घर में मेरे सामने कृ ष्णा यादव
को पुलिस वालो ने नही मारा था परंतु वह बुरी चोटिल था।"
साक्षी आई० डब्लू० 3 अजय कु मार यादव ने बयान किया है कि-
"मैं ए०सी० मैके निक के हैल्पर के रूप में एक साल से काम कर रहा हूँ। उसके पहले पढता था। हम
तीन भाई थे। मृतक कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी मंझला भाई था। दिनांक 11.02.2021 को समय
03.00 बजे सौरभ पाठक पुत्र जितेन्द्र पाठक बाईक से आया जोकि कृ ष्णा यादव के पास आता
जाता था। मैनें उसको आते हुए देखा था। वो आकर बोला कि एस०ओ० साहब रोड पर खड़े है और
9
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
तुझको बुला रहे है। रोड घर से 150 मीटर दूरी पर है। कृ ष्णा उसकी बाईक पर बैठकर चला गया। मैं
और चन्द्रबदन उसके पीछे -पीछे बाईक से गये थे। रोड पर जाकर सौरभ बाईक रोक दिया। जहाँ पर
पुलिस वाले थे, जिसमें से कु छ वर्दीधारी नहीं थे। रोड से कृ ष्णा यादव को जबरदस्ती बैठाने लगे तो
मैनें विरोध किया। तो उन्होंनें कहा कि मैं एस॰ओ॰जी॰ से है पूछताछ के लिए ले जा रहे है। उस टीम
में एस०ओ० अजय कु मार भी थे। बाकि के लोग को मैं नहीं पहचानता। फिर पुलिस वाले कृ ष्णा
यादव उर्फ पुजारी को गाड़ी में बैठाकर ले गये। ये घटना कं सराज यादव जिसकी रोड पर चाय की
दुकान है ने भी देखी। मैं वापस घर चला आया। घर आकर घटना के बारे में लोगों को बताया। करीब
04.30 बजे मैं तथा चन्द्रबदन थाना बक्शा गये। जब हम थाने पर गये तो देखा कि कृ ष्णा जमीन पर
बैठा था। उसने हमको बताया कि पुलिस वाले उसको मारे-पीटे है। वह कह रहा था कि भाई हमको
बचा लो, पुलिस वाले बहुत मार रहे है। हमको पुलिस वालो ने उससे मिलने नही दिया और पुजारी को
उठाकर अंदर ले गये। हम लोगों को गाली देकर ताने के भगा दिया। वहां से मैनें बाहर निकलकर
एस०पी० साहब को फोन करके तथा व्हाटसएप करके बताया। परंतु एस०पी० साहब ने संतोषजनक
जवाब नही दिया। मेरी उनसे फोन पर बात हुई थी। फिर मैं घर चला गया। रात के 08.00 बजे के
करीब 10-12 पुलिसवाले जिसमें कु छ वर्दीधारी नहीं थे आये और घर में घुस गये तथा दरवाजा पीटने
लगे। मैं तथा मेरी माताजी ने कृ ष्णा यादव के बारे में पूछा तो उन लोगो ने कहा कि वो थाने पर है।
फिर पुलिसवालो ने मेरे छोटे भाई की पत्नी कोमल जो अंदर के कमरे में सोई थी उसको जबरदस्ती
दरवाजा खुलावकर हाथ से पकड़कर निकाल दिया। दो मोबाईल और मोटरसाईकिल जबरदस्ती ले
गये। रात में पुनः 12.30 बजे 10-12 पुलिसवाले मेरे भाई को लेकर आये जिसमें एस०ओ० अजय
कु मार सिंह भी थे। मेरा भाई रो पीट रहा था और चल नही पा रहा था। दो पुलिसवाले उसको पकड़
कर लाये और बाहर पड़ी चारपाई पर डाल दिया। मेरा भाई जोर जोर से कह रहा था कि जो भी पैसा
हो इनको लाकर दे दो और हमको बचा लोगही तो ये लोग मुझे मार डालेंगे। मेरी माताजी मेरे भाई को
पकड़कर रोने लगी, कहने लगी जो भी पैसा था वो तो आप लोग पहले ही लूट चुके हो फिर एस०ओ०
अजय कु मार ने कहा कि साला प्रधानी लडेगा, मैं इसको प्रधानी लड़ाता हूँ। फिर एस०ओ० अजय
कु मार सिंह ने कहा कि अगर अपने लड़के को सही सलामत देखना चाहते हो तो डेढ लाख रुपया
लेकर थाने आओ नही तो इसे गोली मार देंगे। हम रात में थाने पर नही गये। सुबह 06.00 06.30 बजे
हल्ला होने लगा कि कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी को पुलिस वालो ने जान से मरा दिया। इसके बाद
लगभग 08.00 बजे एस०पी० सिटी के आवास पर गया और उनको पूरी बात बतायी। एस०पी० सिटी
ने दिलाशा देकर कहा कि ऐसी कोई बात नही है तुम्हारा भाई जल्दी छू ट जायेगा। एस०पी० सिटी ने
एक दरोगा को बुलाया जिनका नाम राजेश यादव है जो शायद सरपतहां थाने से है बुलवाया। फिर
एस०पी० सिटी अंदर चले गये और एस०ओ० राजेश यादव हमको बाहर ले गये। मुझे बताया कि
तुम्हारे भाई की मृत्यु हो गयी है। वो बोले जो होना था वो हो गया, उनको ऐसा नहीं करना चाहिए था।
फिर वो मुझे गाड़ी में बैठाकर जबरदस्ती सदे अस्पताल ले गये। वहां पर 100-200 पुलिसवाले पहले
से मौजूद थे। और तमाम लोग भी थे। बड़ी कहने सुनने के बाद हमे तथा प्रमोद यादव को हमारे भाई
का मुंह दिखाये। मेरे भाई के हाथ काले हो रहे थे। पूरी पीठ काली हो गयी थी। रीढ की हड् डी के पास
खून निकल रहा था। फिर हम लोगो को बाहर निकाल दिये। पुलिस वाले रिपोर्ट लिखने को तैयार नहीं
थे, जब लोगों ने दबाव बनाया तो सांय के समय रिपोर्ट लिखी गयी। रिपोर्ट मैनें लिखायी थी। जो
दोपहर में 03.00 बजे पुलिसवाले रोड पर से पुजारी को उठा कर ले गये थे तो उस समय उसे कोई
नही मारा था। जब हम थाने पर गये पुलिसवाले जो 4-5 की संख्या में थे डण्डे व बेल्ट से मार रहे थे।
जब रात में पुलिसवाले घर लेकर आये थे तब किसी पुलिसवाले ने ने नही मारा था। मेरी माताजी को
प्लास्टिक का पाईप मारे थे। सब पुलिसवाले भद्दी-भद्दी गालियाँ दे रहे थे। मेरे भाई का कोई
आपराधिक इतिहास नही था। वह सीधा-सीधा व्यक्ति था। मेरे भाई को उठाने में सौरभ पाठक का
पूरा हाथ है परंतु पुलिसवाले उसके खिलाफ कोई कार्यवाही नही कर रहे है। मेरा भाई पूर्ण रूप से
स्वस्थ था, उसे कोई बिमारी नही थी। उसकी मृत्यु पुलिसवालों के मारने के कारण से हुई है।"
10
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
साक्षी आई॰डब्लू० 4 प्रदीप यादव ने बयान किया है कि-
"हम लोग तीन भाई थे। जिसमें मैं सबसे छोटा हूँ। अजय यादव सबसे बडा, कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी
बीच वाला भाई था। मै मुम्बई में रहकर ए०सी० मैके निक का काम करता हूँ। मेरे पिताजी भी मुम्बई में
रहकर गाड़ी चलाते है। दिनांक 11.02.2021 को मेरी पत्नी कोमल यादव ने फोन करके बताया कि
मेरे भाई कृ ष्णा को पुलिस उठा ले गयी है। मेरे पूछने पर उसने बताया कि थाना बक्शा की पुलिस
जिस में एस०ओ० अजय सिंह व एस०ओ०जी० की टीम रोड पर से उठा कर ले गयी है। उसने बताया
कि सौरभ पाठक उसको बुलाकर ले गया था। पुलिसवाले कह रहे थे कि पूछताछ करके छोड़ देंगे
और हम लोग निश्चिंत हो गये। फिर मेरी पत्नी ने फोन करके बताया कि पुलिसवाले घर पर आकर
पैसा और घर का सामान लूट ले गधे है, तब हम घबरा गये और अन्य लोगो से बातचीत किया। परंतु
उन लोगों द्वारा कोई संतोषजनक जवाब नही दिया गया। रात 12.30 के बाद मेरी पत्नी द्वारा पुनः
फोन करके रोते हुए बताया गया कि पुलिसवाले भईया को लेकर आये थे। कु ल 10-12 की संख्या में
थे। कु छ वर्दी नही पहने थे। उसने बताया कि पुलिसवाले ज्यादामार दिये है , जिससे वह चल नही पा
रहा है। भईया रो रहे थे कि जो भी पैसा है देकर मेरी जान बचा लो नही तो ये लोग मुझे जान से मार
देगें। एस०ओ० अजय सिंह ने भद्दी-भद्दी गालियां दी और कहा कि अगर पैसा नही दोगे तो सुबह तेरे
बेटे की लाश मिलेगी। यह बात मेरी पत्नी द्वारा मुझे फोन करके बतायी गयी थी। सुबह 06.00 बजे
को 12 तारीख को मेरी पत्नी का फोन आया कि पुलिसवालो ने कृ ष्णा यादव को मार डाला है और
सदर अस्पताल में छोड़कर चले गये है। हम लोग उन्हें देखने जा रहे है। फिर मैं, मेरे पिताजी, मेरे बडे
पापा का लड़का विनोद यादव फलाईट द्वारा जौनपुर आये। जौनपुर सदर 07.00 बजे के बीच में
पहुँचे। मैनें अस्पताल सांयकाल 06.30 और मेरे पूरे परिवार ने भाई के शव को देखा था। इसकी कमर
पर व आँख, नाक व कान से खून आ रहा था। फिर हम लोगों को अस्पताल से हटा दिया गया।"
साक्षी आई॰डब्लू० 5 डा० मनीष कु मार के सरवानी सी०एच०सी० सुजानगंज (पोस्टमार्टम कर्ता) ने
ब्यान किया है कि-
मुख्या चिकित्साधिकारी, जौनपुर के आदेश के अनुसार मेरी ड्यूटी दिनांक 12.02.2021 को
पोस्टमार्टम हाऊस, जौनपुर लगायी गयी थी। मेरे अलावा मेरे पैनल में डा० शाहिद अख्तर,
सी०एच०सी० मडियाहूँ व डा०प्रवीण कु मार, सी०एच०सी० रेहटी एं व फार्मासिस्ट अवधेश कु मार,
पुलिस लाईन अस्पताल मौजूद थे। दिनांक 12.02.2021 को ए०डी०एम० के आदेशानुसार रात्रि
09.10 पी०एम० पर कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी का शव विच्छेद शुरू किया गया। शव विच्छेद की
कार्यावाही की विडियोग्राफी शुभम मौर्या द्वारा की गयी। शव को का० अरविन्द कु मार व का० मनीष
कु मार थाना बक्शा द्वारा पोस्टमार्टम हाऊस लाया गया था। पोस्टमार्टम रिपोर्ट पर मेरे पैनल द्वारा
निम्न चोटे पायी गयी-
(1) Contusion of size 30 x 20 cm दोनों नितम्बों पर जोकि लाल भूरा रंग लिये हुए था।
(2) Contusion of size 15 x 08 cm लगभग उपरी पीठ पर दोनो तरफ कं धो के पास
जोकि लाल भूरा रंग लिये हुए था।
(3) Contusion of size 10 x 08 cm लगभग बाये भुजा पर बाहर तरफ था जोकि नीला
रंग लिए हुए था।
उक्त तीनों चोटों के अलावा अन्य कोई जाहिरा चोट नही थी। कोई हड्डी भी टूटी नही थी। किसी
धारदार हथियार की भी कोई चोट नही थी।
उक्त चोटे ऐसी प्रकृ ती की नही थी, जिसमें कि किसी की मृत्यु प्रायः सम्भाव्य हो।
11
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
जब शव का विच्छेद किया गया तो प्रथमतः छाती खोलने पर यह पाया गया कि दोनो फे फड़ो में खून
भरा हुआ था। पसली में कोई दिक्तत नही थी। सांस नली सामान्य थी। गर्दन में कोई दिक्कत नही
थी। हृदय के दो चैम्बरों में खून भरा था। हृदय के दाहिने चैम्बर Ventricle' की पिछली दिवार पर 2 x
1 cm का सफे द धब्बा था। जो कि चिन्हित करता है कि उक्त धब्बा MI (दिल का दौरा) 'हृदयाघात'
होने की वजह से सम्भाव्य है।"
10. As per story developed by the police, the deceased was brought to the police
station at about 01:30 A.M. on 12.02.2021 after his arrest at about 10:25 P.M. on
11.02.2021 and he was sent to CHC Naupedwa, Jaunpur, at about 02:00 AM on
12.02.2021 for first aid, where Doctor referred him for District Hospital and when
the deceased was brought to District Hospital by ambulance he was found dead.
11. Learned A.G.A. has produced before us case diary to impress that as per an
alleged slip issued by the Doctor on emergency duty in Amar Sahid Uma Nath Singh
District Hospital Jaunpur dated 12.2.2021, the deceased Krishna Yadav was brought
dead at the Hospital at about 03:35 A.M. by the Constable Manish Kumar and
Constable Samir Kumar, P.S. Baksa.
12. A supplementary affidavit dated 09.08.2021 has been filed by the petitioner
annexing therewith three photographs of the dead body of the deceased Krishna
Yadav. Averments in this regard have been made by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of
the supplementary affidavit dated 09.08.2021 which have not been denied or
disputed by the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.3 in separate counter
affidavits filed by them. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent
no.2 by Chaub Singh, Circle Officer Badlapur, District - Jaunpur who replied the
contents of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the aforesaid supplementary affidavit, in paragraph
33 of his counter affidavit as under :
"That the contents of paragraph nos. 2 & 3 of the supplementary affidavit refer to
post mortem report dated 12.02.2021 and colour photographs of the deceased
Krishna Yadav @ Pujari and as per the post mortem report there were three injuries
on the person of the deceased and as per opinion of the doctor the said injuries are
not sufficient for death and the cause of death of deceased is Shock & Syncope as a
result of ante-mortem myocardial infraction and the viscera was preserved for any
intoxication. As per the viscera report dated 01.07.2021 issued by the Forensic
Science Laboratory, Ram Nagar , Varanasi no Chemical poison was found in
viscera."
13. In his counter affidavit dated 06.09.2021, Sri Ajay Kumar Sahani, Superintendent
of Police, Jaunpur, has replied paragraph 3 of the aforesaid supplementary affidavit,
as under :
"That in reply to the contents of paragraph no.3 of the supplementary affidavit, it is
submitted that the post-mortem report shows that there were 3 injuries on the person
of deceased and as per the penal of doctors these injuries were not sufficient for
death. The cause of death was due to shock and syncope as a result of ante-mortem
myocardial infarction."
14. On 03.09.2021 this writ petition was heard at length and a detailed order dated
03.09.2021 was passed, observing as under :-
Despite all these facts well on record and for the reasons best known to the
respondents, they have not taken any action against the accuseds pursuant to the
impugned FIR but as a matter of eye wash transfer or suspension or attachment order
12
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
of accuseds were passed. The custodial death of deceased is undisputed. Serious
allegations supported by the inquiry witnesses are well on record and and yet for the
reasons best known to the respondents, no action has been taken against the accused,
instead, it prima facie appears that effort is being made to linger the investigation and
carry it in a direction so the accused policemen may escape.
15. When this matter was heard on 06.09.2021 in presence of the Superintendent of
Police Jaunpur, this court noted in the order the admission and submissions made by
the State-respondents, as under :
"Heard Sri Sarvesh Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Pal,
learned Government Advocate assisted by Sri Roopak Chaubey, learned AGA for the
State-respondents.
On oral request, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Central
Bureau of Investigation through its Director as respondent no. 5 in the array of
parties. He undertakes to serve a copy of the writ petition along with supplementary
affidavit and a copy of this order upon the counsel appearing on behalf of C.B.I.,
during course of the day.
Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 3 dated 6.9.2021 has been filed today,
which is taken on record. Sri Ajay Kumar Sahni, Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur is
present in the Court in compliance of the order dated 3.9.2021.
Learned Government Advocate admits that the photographs of the deceased filed
along with the supplementary affidavit dated 9.8.2021 is undisputed. The contents of
paragraph no. 3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 9.8.2021 regarding the aforesaid
photographs, have neither been disputed nor denied by the respondent no. 3 in
paragraph no. 43 of the counter affidavit dated 6.9.2021. He states that accused
police men are absconding and efforts are being made for their arrest. He submits
that the present Superintendent of Police namely Sri Ajay Kumar Sahni has taken the
charge on 17.6.2021 and thus he was not the Superintendent of Police at the time of
registration of first information report no. 0038 of 2021 dated 12.2.2021 under
Section 302, 394, 452, 504 IPC in which the SOG team Jaunpur, S.O. Baksa, Ajay
Kumar Singh and S.O. Hamrah, Thana Baksa Jaunpur were the accused. He states
that one Sri Rajkaran Naiyar was the then Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a day's time to file
rejoinder affidavit.
Put up as fresh on 8.9.2021 at 10:00 A.M. for further hearing before this Bench."
16. The facts as briefly noted above prima facie reveal that the deceased was lifted
by the S.H.O. Police Station Baksa and other policemen on 11.02.2021 and,
thereafter he remained in the custody. The story of accident of the deceased in the
afternoon of 11.02.2021 is a story prima facie developed by the police so as to give a
different colour for the death of the deceased. As per own case of the police and G.D.
entry, the deceased was arrested at about 10:25 A.M. on 11.02.2021 but he was
brought to the police station at about 01:30 A.M. on 12.02.2021 and no treatment
was required. Surprisingly, telephone calls were made to Sub-inspector Sunil Kumar
Tiwari, Constable Manish Kumar and Constable Sameer Kumar between 01:30 A.M.
to 01:45 A.M. requiring them to come to the police station to carry the deceased for
first aid/ treatment. As per statement given by these three police personnel before the
C.J.M., Jaunpur, they took the deceased at about 02:00 A.M. on 12.02.2021 to bring
him to C.H.C. Naupedwa, Jaunpur.
13
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
17. As per police story, the aforesaid S.I. Sunil Kumar Tiwari, Constables Manish
Kumar and Sameer Kumar also brought the deceased to District Hospital, Jaunpur.
But perusal of their statement before the C.J.M. reveals that they had neither carried
nor brought the deceased to the District Hospital rather they returned from C.H.C.
Nawpedwa. As per photo-stat copy of the entry in the register at C.H.C. Nawpedwa,
Jaunpur at serial No.E-3092, Krishna Yadav, when brought to the C.H.C., Naupedwa,
Jaunpur, was unconscious and his B.P. and P.P. were not found and after thorough
examination, the doctor referred him to District Hospital, Jaunpur at 01:55 A.M. The
aforesaid photo stat copy of the register of C.H.C. Naupedwa, Jaunpur, has been
produced before us by the learned A.G.A. stating it to be part of the case diary. Thus,
when as per own case of the respondents, they took the deceased Krishna Yadav at
about 02.00 A.M. on 12.02.2021 from the police station Baksa, then how it is
possible that the doctor after thorough examination, has referred the deceased for
District Hospital at 01:55 A.M. That apart, the doctor at the C.H.C. has found the
deceased in an unconscious condition and his B.P. and P.P. were not found whereas
the G.D. entry shows that the deceased was merely making some complain of pain in
stomach. Surprisingly, the aforesaid three policemen who brought Krishna Yadav to
C.H.C. Naupedwa, have stated that they have not seen any scratch or injury on the
body of Krishna Yadav who has also not told about injuries and who told the doctor
about pain in stomach, WHEREAS as per entries made by the doctor in the register
at the C.H.C. Naupedwa, the Krishna Yadav was unconscious and his B.P. and P.P.
were not found. Thus, the police story and G.D. entries are prima facie false and a
criminal act to divert investigation in a wrong direction by manipulating evidences
so as to defeat the rule of law and fair investigation. The respondents have set up a
case that the deceased was carried by the aforesaid Sub Inspector Sunil Kumar
Tiwari, Constable Manish Kumar and Constable Sameer Kumar from the police
station to C.H.C. Naupedwa, Jaunpur and thereafter from the C.H.C., Naupedwa to
the District Hospital Jaunpur, but these three persons have stated in their statement
before the C.J.M., Jaunpur that they carried the deceased only upto C.H.C.
Naupedwa Jaunpur and thereafter, they came back. Thus, the story developed by the
respondents that the deceased was brought to District Hospital, Jaunpur by the
aforesaid Sub Inspector and Constable, is itself not supported by their statements.
18. It is admitted case of the respondents that the deceased had received various
injuries, which is reflected from the G.D. Entry No. 05. The statement made by the
mother and brother of the deceased before the C.J.M., Jaunpur regarding brutal
beating by the police and consequent injuries to the deceased, prima facie
corroborates with the photographs of the deceased and a little reference in the G.D.
entry No. 5. Surprisingly, the post mortem report does not contain the injuries
present on vital part of the body of the deceased which can be easily seen in the
undisputed photographs filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit. Thus, prima
facie, post mortem report also appears to be manipulated or procured under undue
influence.
19. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that the incident of
lifting the deceased by the Police on 11.02.2021 was informed to the Superintendent
of Police Jaunpur over telephone (mobile phone) and by sending messages but no
action was taken. Copy of call details and messages have been filed as Annexure
No.3 which have not been disputed by the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 both in their
counter affidavits. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated about
some independent eye witnesses and some family members who submitted their
notarized statement before the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police,
14
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
Jaunpur. Copies of statements of Ajay, Kanshraj, Chandrabhan and Saraswati Devi
have been filed collectively as Annexure No.2. But in their counter affidavits the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vaguely denied it without denying the fact of statements and
its contents. From the records of the writ petition and the report of the C.J.M.,
Jaunpur dated 25.6.2021 it appears that the deceased was preparing for election of
Village Panchayat and he was threatened by the SHO Baksha.
20. The statements given by witness and filed alongwith the writ petition as referred
in paras above, are reproduced below :-
Statement of Ajay Kumar Yadav
सेवा में,
श्रीमान जिलाधिकारी/ पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर विषयः मु० अ० सं०- 38/2021 अन्तर्गत
धारा-30, 394, 504 आई० पी० सी० थाना-बक्शा, जिला-जौनपुर में 161 Cr.P.C के बयान के
सम्बन्ध में-
हलफनामा मिनजानिब अजय पुत्र तिलकधारी उम्र त० 30 वर्ष सा० मौ०- चकमिर्जापुर, थाना-बक्शा,
जिला-जौनपुर हस्व जैल हैः-
दफा-1 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मैं उपरोक्त नाम व पते का मूल निवासी हूँ तथा मेरे नाम व
बल्दियत का कोई अन्य व्यक्ति मेरे मौजे मे नही है।
दफा-2 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मुकदमा उपरोक्त में वादी हूं।
दफा-3 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी पुत्र तिलकधारी उ० त० 24 वर्ष सा० मौ
चकमिर्जापुर, थाना-बक्शा, जिला-जौनपुर मेरा छोटा भाई था।
दफा-4 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मेरा छोटा भाई कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी के ऊपर जनपद जौनपुर के
किसी भी थाने में कोई मुकदमा नही था कृ ष्णा एक सीधा-साधा व्यवहार कु शल लड़का था। और वह
प्रधान पद के लिये तैयारी कर रहा था।
दफा-5 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि दिनांक 11.02.2021 को समय करीब 3 बजे दिन की है। मैं व
मेरा छोटा भाई कृ ष्णा और मेरे मित्र चन्द्रबदन यादव घर पर बैठकर बातचीत कर रहे थे कि मोटर
साइकिल से सौरभ पाठक पुत्र जितेन्द्र पाठक सा० मौ०-सिहीपुर, थाना लाइन बाजार, जिला-जौनपुर
कृ ष्णा के घर पर आये तथा कृ ष्णा से कहे की रोड पर चलो बक्शा S.O अजय कु मार सिंह बुला रहे
है। तब कृ ष्णा सौरभ पाठक की मोटर साइकिल पर बैठकर उसके साथ चला गया।
दफा-6 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मैं अजय व मेरे मित्र चन्द्रबदन के साथ उनके पीछे -पीछे मेन
रोड पर पहुँचा तो सौरभ ने मोटर साइकिल ले जाकर कं शराज यादव की दुकान के सामने मेन रोड पर
रोक दिया। वहां पहले से खड़े S.O बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह व कु छ पुलिस वाले वहां थे कृ ष्णा को
जबरदस्ती अपनी गाड़ी में बैठाकर लेकर जाने लगे मैं व चन्द्रबदन ने पुलिस वालो से पूछा क्यों ले जा
रहे है तो कु छ पुलिस वाले बोले की हम लोग S.O.G से है पूछताछ के लिए ले जा रहे है सौरभ भी
पुलिस वालो की गाड़ी के साथ-साथ अपनी मोटर साइकिल से गया।
दफा-7 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वाले को ले जाते समय अजय व कं शराज
यादव व मैं तथा गाँव व अगल-बगल के तमाम लोगो ने देखा।
दफा-8 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि कृ ष्णा यादव को थाना बक्शा पुलिस ले जाने के बाद मैं व
चन्द्रबदन यादव भी थाना बक्शा गये मैं व मेरे मित्र चन्द्रबदन ने देखा मेरे भाई कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वाले
15
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
लांकअप में बन्द किये थे मेरा भाई रो रहा था। मैं व चन्द्रबदन ने कृ ष्णा से मिलने का प्रयास किया तो
पुलिस वाले मुझे व चन्द्रबदन को गाली-गुफ्ता देते हुए थाने से भगा दिये।
दफा-9 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि थाने में पुलिस वालो द्वारा मेरे भाई कृ ष्णा को लॉकअप में बन्द
करने पर मुझे विश्वास हो गया कि मेरे भाई को पुलिस वाले किसी फर्जी मुकदमें में चालान कर देंगे।
दफा-10 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि अपने छोटे भाई कृ ष्णा को फर्जी मुकदमें में फं साने व प्राण
रक्षा के लिए श्रीमान पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर के मौ० नं०- 9454400280 पर अपने मोबाइल नं०-
9984669989 से दो बार फोन लगभग 5.35 बजे शाम दिनांक 11.02.2021 को फोन किया तथा
सही जबाव न मिलने पर श्रीमान पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर के मोबाइल वाट्सअप पर अपने भाई के
बारे में थाना बक्शा जबरदस्ती उठा ले जाने के बावत मैसेज भी किया था। जिसका रिकार्ड मेरे पास
है।
दफा-11 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि दिनांक 11.02.2021 को समय रात्रि 8 बजे मैं अजय यादव व
मेरी पत्नी सुनीता, मेरी माता सरस्वती देवी, भाभी गुड़िया, चचेरे भाई प्रमोद यादव ओसार में बैठकर
बातचीत कर रहे थे। और हमारे छोटे भाई प्रदीप यादव की पत्नी कोमल यादव की तबियत खराब
होने की वजह से वह घर के अन्दर सोई थी। हम सब परिवारजन कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वाले बिना वजह
के क्यों लेकर गये इसी विषय में बातचीत कर रहे थे। तभी थाना बक्शा S.O अजय कु मार सिंह व
10-12 पुलिस वाले कु छ वर्दी में कु छ सादे वर्दी में मेरे घर पर आये। और भद्दी भद्दी गाली देने लगे।
मेरे व परिवार के पूछने पर कि मेरा भाई कहा है तो पुलिस वाले ने बताया कि तुम्हारा भाई कृ ष्णा
थाने में है।
दफा-12 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मेरे व परिवार वालो के विरोध करने पर बन्दूक दिखाकर चुप
करा दिया। और दरवाजा पीटने लगे। अन्दर मेरे छोटे भाई प्रदीप यादव की पत्नी कोमल यादव
शोरगुल और दरवाजा जोर-जोर से पीटने की वजह से दरवाजा खोला। तो उसको भद्दी-भद्दी गाली
देते हुए हाथ पकड़कर धक्का देते हुए घर से बाहर निकाल दिया। घर में घुसकर बक्शे का ताला
तोड़कर बक्शे में रखा 60 हजार रूपया जो मैने अपने मौसा संतोष यादव पुत्र ज्वाला यादव से खेत
जो मेरा रेहन पर था छु ड़ाने के लिए लिया था।
दफा-13 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि घर के अन्दर रखा हुआ खाना-पीना फे क दिया और धमकाते
हुए व भद्दी-भद्दी गाली देते हुए बोले कि अगर तुम लोग हल्ला गुल्ला करोगे तो तुम सबको मारेंगे।
और कृ ष्णा को जान से मार देंगे। जाते समय घर पर खड़ी अपाचे जिसका नम्बर -UP 62/BF3621
भी उठा ले गये।
दफा-14 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि 11/12.02.2021 को रात्रि लगभग 12.30 बजे वही पुलिस
वाले जो रात्रि 8 बजे आये थे वही पुलिस वाले मेरे भाई कृ ष्णा यादव को घसीटते हुए घर पर लाये तो
मेरे भाई ठीक से खड़ा नहीं हो पा रहा था। बाहर पड़ी चारपाई पर उसे फे क दिये। मेरा भाई जोर -जोर
से कराह रहा था मां-मां मुझे बचा लो। उसके बाद पुलिस वाले मेरे भाई का बाल पकड़कर चारपाई
से जमीन पर पटक दिया। और पुलिस वाले बोले साले प्रधानी लड़ेगा तो तुझे उस लायक नही
छोडूगा।
दफा-15 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मेरे व परिवार के पूछने पर कि साहब मेरे भाई ने क्या गलती
की है जो आप इसे इतना मारे है और हम गरीब लोगो को क्यो सता रहे है। तो S.O अजय कु मार
सिंह ने गाली देते हुए कहा कि चुप रहो नहीं तो तुम्हारा भी यही हाल करेंगे। और पैसा लाओ तभी
तुम्हारे भाई को छोड़ेगे अगर पैसा नहीं दोगे तो तुम्हारे भाई की जान ले लेंगे। हत्या कर देंगे। मैं व मेरा
पूरा परिवार पुलिस वालो के सामने हाथ जोड़कर रोने लगे कि साहब मेरे भाई को छोड़ दो। लेकिन
भद्दी-भद्दी साली देते हुए मेरे भाई को घसीटते हुए लेकर चले गये।
16
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
दफा-18 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मुझे अफवाहन सुबह 12.02.2021 को 8 बजे पता चला कि
मेरे भाई को अजय कु मार सिंह व S.O.G टीम व पुलिस वाले द्वारा हत्या कर दी गयी।
दफा-19 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मैं उक्त सूचना पर क्षेत्राधिकारी सदर के यहाँ गया तो
क्षेत्राधिकारी सदर ने थाने पर फोन कर पता किया पता करने के बार मुझे सदर अस्पताल जौनपुर ले
गये जहां पर मेरे भाई का शव पड़ा था।
दफा-20 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि पुलिस वाले मेरे भाई का पोस्टमार्टम कराने व शव जलाने का
दबाव बनाने लगे। मैने कहा कि पहले मेरे भाई की हत्या का मुकदमा पुलिस वालो पर दर्ज किया
जाय तब पोस्टमार्टम हेतु लाश भेजी जाय।
दफा-21 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि उक्त घटना की सूचना मुख्यमंत्री उ० प्र० सरकार को
I.G.R.S के माध्यम तथा मानवाधिकार आयोग के फै क्स के माध्यम से सूचना दिया व अपने परिवार
वालो को सूचना दिया।
दफा 22 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि अगल-बगल गांव कु छ सम्भान्त व्यक्तियों द्वारा प्रदर्शन सदर
अस्पताल में किया गया काफी दबाव के बाद मेरे भाई के हत्या के बावत मुकदमा उपरोक्त दर्ज हुआ।
दफा-23 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि उक्त अजय कु मार सिंह थानाध्यक्ष बक्शा व S.O.G टीम व
पुलिस वालो के मारने से पुलिस कस्टडी में मेरा भाई मर गया तथा झूठी कहानी बनाकर मेरी भाई के
ऊपर झूठा मुकदमा लिखकर घटना कि लिपा पोती पुलिस द्वारा की जा रही है।
दफा-24 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि उक्त बातें मेरा 161 सी० आर० पी० सी० का बयान मानते
हुए सम्बन्धित विवेचक को प्रेषित करने की कृ पा करें।
अतः श्रीमान जी से अनुरोध है कि उक्त बयान हलफी को मेरा 161 सी०आर०पी० सी० के बयान के
रूप में दर्ज करने की कृ पा करें।
Statements of Kanashraj Yadav
समक्ष,
श्रीमान जिलाधिकारी / पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर
विषयः- मु० अ० सं०- 38/2021 अन्तर्गत धारा-302, 394, 504, 452 I.P.C थाना-बक्शा, जिला-
जौनपुर में 161 Cr.P.C के बयान के सम्बन्ध में-
हलफनामा मिनजानिब कं शराज यादव उ० त० 40 वर्ष पुत्र जलन्धर यादव ग्राम- चकमिर्जापुर, थाना-
बक्शा, जिला-जौनपुर हस्ब जैल हैः-
दफा-1 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि उपरोक्त नाम पते का स्थायी निवासी हूं मेरी दुकान मेन रोड पर
यादव जलपान, कृ ष्णा डेरी के नाम से है।
दफा-2 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मेरी दुकान इलाहाबाद रोड पर है। दिनांक 11.02.2021 समय
लगभग 3 बजे दिन मेरी दुकान के सामने S.O बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह व करीब 10-12 पुलिस वाले
दो गाड़ी से खड़े थे तभी सौरभ पाठक, कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी पुत्र तिलकधारी मोटर साइकिल से
लेकर पुलिस वाले के पास आया और पीछे से अजय यादव, कृ ष्णा का भाई व चन्द्रबदन यादव भी
आ गये।
दफा-3 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि अजय यादव पुलिस वालो से कृ ष्णा को ले जाने का कारण
पूछा तो पुलिस वाले बोले की S.O.G से ही पूछताछ के लिए ले जा रहे है। मेरे सामने ही S.O बक्शा
17
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
अजय कु मार सिंह व S.O.G टीम के पुलिस वालो द्वारा कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी को पकड़कर ले
गये।
दफा-4 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि 12.02.2021 को गाँव के अफवाहन पता चला कि कृ ष्णा
यादव की पुलिस कस्टडी में मौत हो गयी है लाश सदर अस्पताल में पड़ी है।
दफा-5 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि कृ ष्णा की मौत पुलिस वालो के मारने से आयी चोटो के कारण
हुई है।
दफा-6 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि हलफनामा मेरे निजी ज्ञान में सच व सही है न कोई बात झूठ है
न छिपायी गयी, ईश्वर मेरी मदद करें।
Statements of Chandrabadan Yadav
सेवा में,
श्रीमान जिलाधिकारी / पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर
विषयः मु० अ० सं०-38/2021 अन्तर्गत धारा-302, 394, 504, 452.I.P.C थाना-बक्शा, जिला-
जौनपुर में 161 Cr.P.C के बयान के सम्बन्ध में-
हलफनामा मिनजानिब चन्द्रबदन पुत्र बाबूराम यादव उम्र त० 25 वर्ष सा० मौ०-चकमोलनापुर, थाना-
बक्शा, जिला-जौनपुर हस्ब जैल है:-
दफा-1 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मैं उपरोक्त नाम व पते का मूल निवासी हूं तथा मेरे नाम व
बल्दियत का कोई अन्य व्यक्ति मेरे मौजे मे नही है।
दफा-2 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी मेरा मित्र का भाई था।
दफा-3 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी मेरे मित्र का छोटा भाई था जनपद के किसी
भी थाने में कोई मुकदमा नही था कृ ष्णा एक सीधा सादा व्यवहार कु शल लड़का था और वो प्रधान
पद के लिए तैयारी कर रहा था।
दफा-4 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि दिनांक 11/2/2021 को समय 2 बजे से अजय के साथ उनके
घर पर था दिनांक 11/2/2021 को समय करीब 3 बजे मोटरसाइकिल से सौरभ पाठक पुत्र जितेन्द्र
पाठक सा० मौ० सीहीपुर थाना लाइन बाजार जिला जौनपुर कृ ष्णा के घर पर आये तथा कृ ष्णा से
कहे रोड पर चलो बक्सा एस० ओ० अजय कु मार सिंह बुला रहे हैं कृ ष्णा सौरभ पाठक कि बाइक पे
चले गये।
दफा-5 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मैं व अजय, सौरभ पाठक के पिछे पिछे कं शराज यादव कि
दुकान के सामने मेन रोड पे गये तो मैने देखा सौरभ ने मोटरसाइकिल ले जाकर कं शराज यादव के
दुकान के सामने मेन रोड पे रोक दिया तो वहां पहले से खड़े एस० ओ० बक्सा अजय कु मार सिंह व
कु छ पुलिस वाले थे कृ ष्णा को दबरदस्ति अपनी गाड़ी लेकर जाने लगे मैं व अजय ने पुलिस वाले से
पुछा क्यु लेकर जा रहे है तो कु छ पुलिस वाले बोले कि हम एस० ओ० जी० से है पूछताछ के लिए ले
जा रहे है सौरभ पाठक भी पुलिस वालो कि गाड़ी के साथ साथ अपनी मोटरसाइकिल से गया।
दफा-6 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वाले को ले जाते समय अजय व कं शराज
यादव व मैं तथा गाँव व अगल बगल के तमाम लोगो ने देखा।
दफा-7 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि कृ ष्णा यादव को थाना बक्सा पुलिस ले जाने के बाद मैं व
अजय भी थाना बक्सा गये मैं व अजय ने देखा कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वाले लांकअप में बन्द किये थे
18
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
कृ ष्णा रो रहा था मैं व अजय ने कृ ष्णा से मिलने का प्रयास किया तो पुलिस वाले गालीगुप्ता देते हुए
थाने से भगा दिये।
दफा-8 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि पुलिस वालो द्वारा मेरे मित्र के भाई कृ ष्णा यादव को लांकअप
में बन्द करने पर मुझे विश्वास हो गया कि कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वाले किसी फर्जि मुकदमें में चलान कर
देंगे।
दफा-9 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि कृ ष्णा को फर्जि मुकदमें मे फं साने व प्राण रक्षा के लिए मेरे
मित्र अजय ने श्रीमान पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर के मो० नं० - 9454400280 पर अपने मोबाइल नं०
9984669989 से दो बार फोन लगभग 5.35 बजे साम दिनांक 11/2/2021 को फोन किया तथा सही
जबाव न मिलने पर श्रीमान पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर के मो० वाट्सप पर अपने भाई के बारे थाना
बक्सा जबरदस्ती उठा ले जाने के बावत मैसेज भी किया था जिसका रिकार्ड अजय के पास है।
दफा-10 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि सुबह पता चला पुलिस वाले एस० ओ० बक्सा अजय कु मार
सिंह व एस० ओ० जी० रात मे कृ ष्णा के घर आये घर में घुसकर 60 हजार रूपया व मोटरसाइकिल
नं० यू० पी० 62 बी० एफ० 3621 उठा ले गये मना करने पर परिवार वालो को भद्दी भद्दी गाली गुप्ता
दिये।
दफा-11 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि सुबह अफवाहन पता चला कि कृ ष्णा यादव कि पुलिस द्वारा
मारने पिटने के वजह से उसकी मृत्यु हो गयी।
दफा-12 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि जब मैं सदर जौनपुर पहुंचा तो कृ ष्णा यादव कि लाश मर्चरी
पर पड़ी थी उसके शरीर पर मारने पिटने कि वजह से गम्भीर चोट के काले निसान थे जो मैंने अपने
मोबाइल से विडीयो रिकार्ड किया जो मेरे पास है।
दफा-13 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि कृ ष्णा यादव कि मृत्यु पुलिस वाले के मारने पिटने से आई
गम्भीर चोटो के कारण थाने के अन्दर हि हो गयी थी।
दफा-14 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि पुलिस वाले अपने को बचाने के लिए कृ ष्णा यादव पर झुठा
मुकदमा लगा कर मामले कि लिपा पोती कर रहे हैं।
दफा-15 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि उक्त बाते मेरा 161 सी० आर० पी० सी० का बयान मानते
हुए सम्बन्धित विवेचक को प्रेषित करने कि कृ पा करें।
अतः श्रीमान जी से अनुरोध हैं कि उक्त बयान हलफी को मेरा 161 सी० आर० पी० सी० के
बयान के रूप में दर्ज करने कि कृ पा करें।
Statements of Saraswati Devi
सेवा में,
श्रीमान जिलाधिकारी / पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर
विषयः मु० अ० सं०-38/2021 अन्तर्गत धारा-302, 394, 504, 452, I.P.C थाना-बक्शा, जिला-
जौनपुर में 161 Cr.P.C के बयान के सम्बन्ध में-
हलफनामा मिनजानिब सरस्वती देवी पत्नी तिलकधारी उम्र त० 55 वर्ष सा० मौ०-चकमिर्जापुर,
थाना-बक्शा, जिला-जौनपुर हस्ब जैल है:-
दफा-1 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि मैं उपरोक्त नाम व पते की मूल निवासिनी हूं तथा मेरे नाम व
वल्दियत का कोई अन्य महिला मेरे मौजे मे नही है।
दफा-2 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी मेरा लड़का था।
19
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
दफा-3 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि दिनांक 11.02.2021 को समय लगभग 3.00 बजे करीबी
सौरभ पाठक नाम का लड़का मोटरसाईकिल से मेरे घर पर आया कृ ष्णा यादव से कहे चलो तुम्हें
एस० ओ० बक्शा बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह बुला रहे हैं। मेन रोड पर खड़े है। जब मेरा लड़का कृ ष्णा
सौरभ पाठक गाड़ी पे बैठकर चला गया तब मेरा बड़ा लड़का अजय व चन्द्रबदन भी कृ ष्णा के पीछ -
पीछे रोड पर गया था जहां से पुलिस वालें मेरे लड़के कृ ष्णा को अजय व चन्द्रबदन के सामने गाड़ी में
बैठाकर लेकर चले गयें।
दफा-4 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ मेरे लड़के कृ ष्णा को ले जाने के बाद दिनांक 11.02.2021 रात्रि
8.00 बजे मैं व मेरा परिवार ओसार में बैठकर बात चीत कर रहे थे हमारी छोटी बहु कोमल यादव की
तबियत खराब होने की वजह से घर के अन्दर सोई थी बिना वजह कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वालें क्यों लेकर
गये इसी विषय में बात चीत कर रहे थे। तभी थाना एस० ओ० अजय कु मार सिंह व 10-12 पुलिस
वालें कु छ वर्दी मे कु छ सादे वर्दी में मेरे घर पर आये और भद्दी- भद्दी गाली देने लगे मेरे व मेरे परिवार
के पुछने पर की मेरा बेटा कहा है तो पुलिस वालें ने गाली देते हुए बोला तुम्हारा लड़का थाने में है।
दफा-5 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि मेरे व परिवार वालों के विरोध करने पर बन्दूक दिखाकर
चुपकरा दिया और दरवाजा जोर जोर से पिटने लगें अन्दर मेरी छोटी बहु कोमल शोर -गुल और
दरवाजा जोर-जोर से पीटने की वजह से दरवाजा खोला तो उसको भद्दी -भद्दी गाली देते हुए हाथ
पकड़क धक्का देते हुए घर से बाहर निकाल दिया घर मे घुसकर बक्शे का ताला तोड़कर बक्शे मे
रखा हुआ 60 हजार रुपया निकाल लिये और घर के अन्दर रखा हुआ खाना पीना फे क दिया और
धमकाते हुए व भद्दी भद्दी गाली देते हुए बोले की अगर तुम लोग हल्ला गुल्ला करोगे तो तुम सब को
भी मारेंगे और तुम्हारे लड़के को जान से मार देगे। जाते समय घर पर रखी अपाची मोटरसाईकिल यू०
पी० 62 बी० एफ० 3621 उठा ले गये।
दफा-6 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि पुनः 11/12.02.2021 रात्रि 12.30 बजे मेरे घर पर वही पुलिस
वालें जो रात्रि 8.00 बजे आये थे वही पुलिस वाले मेरी लड़के कृ ष्णा यादव को घसीटते हुए घर पर
लायें तो मेरे लड़का ठीक से खड़ा नहीं हो पा रहा था। दो पुलिस वालें पकड़े हुए थे। बाहर पड़ी
चारपाई पर उसे फे क दिया। मेरा लड़का जोर-जोर से कराह रहा था मां, मां मुझे बचा लो। पुलिस
वाले मुझे बहुत मारे है और मेरी हत्या कर देंगे घर में जो कु छ पैसा हो लाकर इन्हें दे दो और मेरी जान
बचा लो। उसके बाद पुलिस वालें मेरे लड़के का बाल पकड़ कर चारपाई से जमीन पर पटक दिया।
दफा-7 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि पुलिस वाले से पुछी साहब मेरे लड़के की क्या गलती है जो
आप इसे इतना मारे है और हम गरीब लोगों को क्यों सता रहे हैं। फिर पुलिस वालें भद्दी-भद्दी गाली
देते हुए मेरे लड़के को घसीटते हुए लेकर चले गये। और पुलिस वाले ने बोला पैसा लाओं तभी तुम्हारे
लड़के को छोड़ेगे नहीं तो जान से मार देगें।
दफा-8 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि पुलिस वालें एस० ओ० बक्शा व एस० ओ० जी० टीम के लोगों
द्वारा मेरे बेटे की बुरी तरह से मारा पीटा गया है। जब मेरा बेटा मर गया तो उसकी लाश सदर
अस्पताल में ले जाकर रखकर भाग गये। यह बात दिनांक 12.02.2021 की सुबह गाँव में अफवाहन
पता चला तब मेरा बड़ा लड़का अजय सी० ओ० सदर के यहां गया वहां से जानकारी हुई कि कृ ष्णा
की लाश सदर अस्पताल में है। हम लोग सदर अस्पताल गये मेरे बेटे की मृत शरीर मरचरी पर पड़ा
था।
दफा-9 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि मेरे बेटे कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी की मृत्यु पुलिस वालों के द्वारा मारने
पीटने से हुई। अब पुलिस वालों द्वारा मेरे बेटे के ऊपर झूठा मुकदमा करके मनगढ़न्त कहानी बना रहे
है पुलिस वालों द्वारा लीपा-पोती की जा रही है।
20
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
दफा-10 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि हलफनामा मेरे निजी ज्ञान में सच व सही है न कोई बात झूठ
है न छिपायी गयी, ईश्वर मेरी मदद करें।
21. Call details filed alongwith the writ petition prima faice showing the complaint
made by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Janupur on 11.02.2021, as
referred in paragraph 19 of this order, is reproduced below :-
"Messages and calls are end-to-end encrypted. No one outside of this chat, not even
WhatsApp can read or listen to them. Tap to learn more
Sir mai Ajay Yadav pakadi chak mirjapur se mera chota bhai chunav ki talvari kar
raha hai prachar prasar kar raha tha chetra me baksha thana utha ke le gai hai muje
asanka hai kahi farji mukada na laga de sir hamari madad kare praadam sir
5:39 PM
Krishna Yadav putra Tilakdhari Yadav
5:39 PM
S
Call History
094544 00280
Mobile, 5:55 PM
Sp Junpur
(S. P Jaunpur)
+Add tag
094544 00280 CALL MESSAGE BLOCK
Mobile, Yesterday 5:34 PM In your contacts
094544 00280
Mobile, Yesterday 5:32 PM (355) 094544 00280
Mobile-BSNL
View call history
[email protected]
Uttar Pradesh East, India
Message +91 94544 00280"
22. As per the alleged Hospital slip being part of the case diary produced today in
court by the learned Government Advocate in presence of the respondent No.3, the
deceased was brought dead by the Police at District Hospital Jaunpur at about 3:35
A.M. On 12.02.2021, whereas, the Superintendent of Police Jaunpur and the District
Magistrate Jaunpur have stated in their letters all dated 12.02.2021 sent to the
National Human Rights Commission New Delhi and the District Judge Jaunpur that
KRISHNA Yadav had died during treatment at 03:35 P.M. at District Hospital,
Jaunpur. These facts have been mentioned by us only as instances.
21
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
23. Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that if this
court directs then investigation shall be carried by the respondent No.5.
24. Perusal of the counter affidavit and copy of the case diary as produced before us
by the learned G.A. Prima facie shows that entire effort of the police is to some how
give clean chit to the accuseds and for this purpose important evidences are being
left and some evidences are being created and manipulated. But presently we do not
want to comment any more since fair investigation is yet to be carried by an
independent and impartial Agency.
25 The facts mentioned above have been noted by us and brief discussion has been
made by us only for the purposes to see as to whether investigation by the police has
been carried honestly, fairly, diligently or attempt is being made to shield guilty
police officers/policemen and to manufacture/create false evidences. Ultimately,
whether the accused policemen have committed offence of murder and other
offences and whether the then Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur and Circle Officer,
Jaunpur were influencing the investigation and are creating false evidences, are
matters of investigation. There are sufficient material on record which prima facie
reveal commission of offence by the accuseds and involvement of higher officers in
consiperacy, destroying evidences and creating false evidences, are matters of
investigation. There are sufficient material on record which prima facie reveal
commission of offence by the accuseds and involvement of higher officers in
consiperacy, destroying evidences and creating false evidences to protect the
accuseds. Fair investigation is the foundation for a fair trial. In the present set of facts
fair investigation by State Police appears to be not possible in view of all the brief
facts and circumstances noted above.
26. This court in writ jurisdiction does not intend to enter into these areas, but with
the sole purpose as to whether fair investigation is being done or not, the facts in
brief have been noted by us. Therefore, the investigation by any agency in a fair
manner, shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by us.
27. Today, learned Government Advocate has stated before us that from the last three
days, efforts are being made for arrest of the accused, but they are absconding and
therefore, N.B.Ws. have been obtained for their arrest, but they could not be arrested
so far.
28. The facts as briefly noted above would further prima facie reveal that officers of
the I.P.S. rank also have some involvement in the murder/death of the deceased
Krishna Yadav, who died in police custody, allegedly due to brutal beating by the
accused policemen.
29. Post mortem report as well as alleged slip dated 12.02.2021 issued by the District
Hospital also prima facie appears to have been managed/fabricated. Serious
allegations have been made against the police personnel, which cannot be said to be
completely without evidence.
30. In the case of K.V. Rajendran vs. Superintendent of Police vs. CBCID, South
Zone, Chennai and others (2013) 12 SCC 480 (Paras-13, 14 and 17), Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that investigation can be transferred from the State
Investigating Agency to any other independent agency like CBI and the power of
transferring such investigation should be exercised in rare and exceptional cases
where the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to
instil confidence in the public mind or where investigation by the State Police lacks
credibility and it is necessary for having "a fair, honest and complete investigation"
22
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
and particularly when it is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial
work of the State Agencies. In the aforesaid case, Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to
its decision in Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Ors (2010) 2 SCC 200 and
observed that in order to do justice and instil confidence in the minds of the victims
as well of the public, the State Police Authorities could not be allowed to continue
with the investigation when allegations and offences were mostly against top
officials. It was further observed that where high officials of State authorities are
involved, or the accusation itself is against the top officials of the investigating
agency thereby allowing them to influence the investigation, and further that it is so
necessary to do justice and to instil confidence in the investigation or where the
investigation is prima facie found to be tainted/biased, the court could exercise its
Constitutional powers for transferring an investigation from the State investigating
agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI only in rare and
exceptional cases.
31. In Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and others (2015) 9 SCC 795
(Para-15), Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the need of fair, proper and
impartial investigation, considered the transfer of investigation to CBI and held as
under:
"15. Suffice it to say that transfers have been ordered in varied situations but while
doing so the test applied by the Court has always been whether a direction for
transfer, was keeping in view the nature of allegations, necessary with a view to
making the process of discovery of truth credible. What is important is that this
Court has rarely, if ever, viewed at the threshold the prayer for transfer of
investigation to CBI with suspicion. There is no reluctance on the part of the Court to
grant relief to the victims or their families in cases, where intervention is called for,
nor is it necessary for the petitioner seeking a transfer to make out a cast-iron case of
abuse or neglect on the part of the State Police, before ordering a transfer. Transfer
can be ordered once the Court is satisfied on the available material that such a course
will promote the cause of justice, in a given case."
32. The criminal justice system mandates that any investigation into the crime should
be fair, in accordance with law and should not be tainted. It is equally important that
interested or influential persons are not able to misdirect or hijack the investigation,
so as to throttle a fair investigation resulting in the offenders escaping punitive
course of law. These are important facets of the rule of law. Breach of rule of law
amounts to negation of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article
21 of the Constitution of India makes it clear that the procedure in criminal trials
must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive, vide Menka
Gandhi vs. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 (para-7) and Vinubhai Haribhai
Malviya and others vs. State of Gujrat and another AIR 2019 SC 5233 (paras-16 and
17) and Subramanian Swamy vs. C.B.I. (2014) 8 SCC 682 (para-86). Article 21
enshrines and guarantees the precious right of life and personal liberty to a person
which can only be deprived on following the procedure established by law in a fair
trial which assures the safety of the accused. The assurance of a fair trial is the first
imperative of the dispensation of justice, vide Commissioner of Police, Delhi vs.
Registrar, Delhi High Court, New Delhi AIR 1997 SC 95 (para-16). The ultimate aim
of all investigation and inquiry whether by the police or by the Magistrate is to
ensure that those who have actually committed a crime, are correctly booked and
those who have not, are not arraigned to stand trial. This is the minimal and
fundamental requirement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Interpretation of
23
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
provisions of Cr.P.C. needs to be made so as to ensure that Article 21 is followed
both in letter and in sprit. "A speedy trial" is the essence of companion in concept in
"fair trial". Both being inalienable jurisprudentially, the guarantee under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India embraces both life and liberty of the accused as well as
interest of the victim, his near and dear ones as well as of the community at large
and, therefore, cannot be alienated from each other. A fair trial includes fair
investigation as reflected from Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If the
investigation is neither effective nor purposeful nor objective nor fair, the courts may
if considered necessary, may order fair investigation, further investigation or
reinvestigation as the case may be to discover the truth so as to prevent miscarriage
of justice. However, no hard and fast rules as such can be prescribed by way of
uniform and universal invocation and decision shall depend upon facts and
circumstances of each case.
33. Fair and proper investigation is the primary duty of the investigating officer. In
every civilized society, the police force is invested with powers of investigation of a
crime to secure punishment for the criminal and it is in the interest of the society that
the investigating agency must act honestly and fairly and not resort to fabricating
false evidence or creating false clues only with a view to secure conviction because
such acts shake the confidence of the common man not only in the investigating
agency but in the ultimate analysis in the system of dispensation of criminal justice.
Proper result must be obtained by recourse to proper means, otherwise it would be an
invitation to anarchy, vide Rampal Pithwa Rahidas vs. State of Maharastra 1994
Suppl, (2) SCC 73 (para-37). Investigation must be fair and effective and must
proceed in the right direction in consonance with the ingredients of the offence and
not in a haphazard manner moreso in serious case. Proper and fair investigation on
the part of the investigating officer is the backbone of rule of law vide Sasi Thomas
vs. State (2006) 12 SCC 421 (para-15 and 18).
34. Therefore, considering the fact and circumstances of the case in its entirety and
applying the principles of law aforenoted, we direct the respondent no.5 to
investigate forthwith in FIR No. 0038/2021, dated 12.02.2021 under Sections 302,
394, 452 & 504 I.P.C. P.S. - Baksa, District - Jaunpur, and accordingly investigation
is transferred/entrusted forthwith to the respondent No.5. The respondent nos. 1, 2, 3
& 4 shall ensure that the entire evidences and papers relating to the aforesaid case
crime/FIR are transferred to Investigating Officer of the respondent No.5 for
investigation. An affidavit of compliance shall be filed on behalf of the respondent
no.5 and also by the State-respondents on or before the next date fixed.
35. Put up as a fresh case on 20.09.2021 at 02:00 P.M. before this bench for further
hearing."
8. The C.B.I. then took up the case and lodged a First Information
Report on 17.09.2021 at 06:15 pm as RC0532021S0010, under Sections
302, 394, 452, 504 IPC, P.S. S.C.B. Lucknow, District Lucknow against
S.O.G. Team, Ajai Kumar Singh S.O. Baksa along with police
personnels of Police Station Baksa, District Jaunpur.
9. The C.B.I. completed the investigation and submitted a charge
sheet dated 22.02.2022 against (i) Ajay Kumar Singh, the then SO, PS
24
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
Baksha, Jaunpur, (ii) Jitendra Singh, PC/Hamrah, PS Baksha, Jaunpur,
(iii) Raj Kumar Verma, PC/Hamrah, PS Baksha, Jaunpur, (iv) Kamal
Bihari Bind, PC/Hamrah, PS Baksha, Jaunpur, (v) Parva Kumar Singh,
the then Inspector/In-Charge, SOG, Jaunpur, (vi) Jai Sheel Tiwari, HC,
SOG, Jaunpur, (vii) Angad Prasad Chaudhary, HC, SOG, Jaunpur, (viii)
Rajan Singh, PC, SOG, Jaunpur, (ix) Shwet Prakash Singh, PC, SOG,
Jaunpur, (x) Ramkrit Yadav, HC, Surveillance Cell, Jaunpur, (xi)
Durgeshwar Mishra, Inspector/SHO, PS Gadwar, Ballia for offences
punishable u/s 34 r/w 302, 330, 331 and 218 r/w 120-B IPC.
10. The Court of the Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No.-6, Lucknow
vide order dated 18.09.2024 framed charges against Ajay Kumar Singh,
Jitendra Singh, Raj Kumar Verma, Kamal Bihari Bind, Parva Kumar
Singh, Jai Sheel Tiwari, Rajan Singh, Shwet Prakash Singh, Angad
Prasad Chaudhary, Ramkrit Yadav and Durgeshwar Mishra for offences
under Sections 302 read with 34 I.P.C., 330 read with 34 I.P.C., 331 read
with 34 I.P.C., 120-B read with 218 I.P.C.
11. The prosecution proposes to produce 93 witnesses in the trial. As
per the statement made by learned Special Public Prosecutor for the
C.B.I. 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date.
(I) Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28849 of 2024
12. Heard Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by Ms. Prabha Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms.
Mohabbat Bi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vineet Vikram, learned
counsel for the first informant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the C.B.I. and perused the records.
13. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Jaysheel Tiwari, seeking
enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.
RC05322021S0010, under Sections 302, 394, 452, 504 I.P.C., Police
Station SCB/CBI, District Lucknow.
14. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is as under:-
25
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
(i) The first information report in the matter was lodged under Sections
302, 394, 452, 504 I.P.C. but charge-sheet has been submitted under
Sections 34 r/w 302, 330, 331, 218 r/w 120-B I.P.C. and thus the C.B.I.
has dropped Section 394 I.P.C. from the charges against the applicant
and hence the genesis of the prosecution was not found correct.
(ii) Charge-sheet dated 22.02.2022 has been submitted against the
applicant and other co-accused.
(iii) Charge in the matter has been framed on 18.09.2024 in which also
Section 394 I.P.C. is not amongst charged sections and thus again it
shows that the genesis of the prosecution story was not found correct.
(iv) While placing supplementary affidavit dated 06.11.2025 and its
Annexure-3 it is submitted that co-accused co-accused Rajan Singh has
been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
04.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1003 of 2023
(Rajan Singh Vs. Union of India Thru. Superintendent of Police
CBI/SCB Lko).
(v) The applicant has no criminal history as stated in paragraph 35 of the
affidavit and is in jail since 19.11.2022.
(vi) The statement of learned counsel for the C.B.I. would go to show
that 11 prosecution witnesses till date have been examined and in all 93
witnesses have to be examined in the trial and thus the trial will take
time to conclude.
15. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. and learned counsel for the first
informant opposed the present bail application and submissions of
learned counsel for the applicant and submitted as under:-
(i) The applicant is named in the first information report and has actively
participated in the present matter.
(ii) The present case is a case of custodial death.
(iii) A co-accused Jitendra Singh was granted bail vide order dated
15.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29494 of
2022 (Jitendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another) which was
26
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
challenged before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.
9816 of 2023 (Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh &
ORS.) in which looking to the facts of the case which are that the case is
a case of custodial death where police officials are arrayed as accused
and as such the offences are grave and serious in nature the bail granted
to the said accused was cancelled vide order dated 12.03.2024. It was
observed that the High Court ought not have taken a liberal view in the
matter.
(iv) The applicant Jaysheel Tiwari and Parva Kumar Singh did not join
the investigation and as such proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. were concluded
against them. Then proceedings u/s 83 Cr.P.C. were also completed
against accused Jaysheel Tiwari whereas the same was under execution
against accused Parva Kumar Singh. The attention of the Court has been
drawn to paragraph 16 (xxxiv) of the charge-sheet which reads as
under:-
"16(xxxiv) Accused Jaisheel Tiwari and Parva Kumar Singh did not join
investigation and as such proceedings u/s 82 was concluded against them.
Proceeding u/s 83 Cr. PC have been completed against accused Jai Sheel
Tiwari. Proceeding u/s 83 Cr.PC is under execution against accused Parva
Kumar Singh."
(v) While placing paragraph 26 & 32 of the counter affidavit dated
24.10.2024 it is submitted that the applicant did not join the investigation
and also did not appear before the trial court despite a number of
opportunities and notices with an intention to escape the clutches of law
and subsequently was arrested on 19.11.2022. There is an apprehension
that the accused-applicant will tamper with the prosecution evidence and
intimidate the prosecution witnesses, if released on bail.
(vi) Supplementary counter affidavit dated 10.12.2025 on behalf of the
C.B.I. has been placed and while placing paragraph 3, 4, 5, 6, & 9 it is
again reiterated regarding the abscondance of the accused-applicant and
his not joining the investigation or trial despite several opportunities and
notices and then being arrested on 19.11.2022 and further while placing
paragraph 3 of it, it is submitted that the informant Ajay Kumar Singh
P.W.-1 has repeatedly expressed threats from accused persons who are
27
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
police officers and requested for adequate security for which letter was
sent by the trial court to the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur as would
appear from the order dated 25.09.2025 of the trial court which is at page
28 of the supplementary affidavit dated 06.11.2025 on behalf of the
applicant.
(vii) It is submitted that the applicant thus would tamper with the
prosecution evidence, threaten and intimidate the prosecution witnesses,
not co-operate in the trial and there are good chances of his abscondance,
if granted bail. It is submitted that the applicant is a police personnel and
involved in a serious matter of custodial death and thus the bail
application be rejected.
16. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information
report. The applicant is a police personnel. The present case is a case of
custodial death. The trial in the matter is going in which 11 prosecution
witnesses have been examined. One co-accused Jitendra Singh was
granted bail by another Bench of this Court which was challenged before
the Apex Court and the Apex Court allowed the said petition and
cancelled the bail granted to him by an order dated 12.03.2024 in Special
Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9816 of 2023 (Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs. The
State of Uttar Pradesh & ORS.), the said order reads as under:-
"Leave granted.
The appellant before us is the complainant, who reported the death of his
brother in police custody on 12th February, 2021. He assails the order granting
bail to one of the police constables accused of committing the said offence.
The deceased was arrested in connection with a case involving robbery and he
was taken into custody on 11th February, 2021. Altogether, 19 police officials
have been implicated in the offence and chargesheet has been submitted
against them. So far as respondent No.3/appellant is concerned, the
chargesheet includes allegations of commission of offences under Section 34
read with Sections 302, 330, 331, 218 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code. The High Court, by its order passed on 15th February, 2023, enlarged
respondent No.3 on bail.
Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel, representing the appellant, questions the
legality of the aforementioned order passed by the High Court. The
investigation was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation 'CBI',
28
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
and Mrs. Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General, representing the said
agency, also supports the appellant's case.
The ground on which the present appeal is resisted by Mr. Balasubramanian,
learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No.3, is that his client,
being a police constable, was working as a substitute driver, only as a stopgap
arrangement, and had no role to play in the alleged commission of the offence
on that date. It is primarily on this ground the High Court had enlarged him on
bail. We have been taken through the chargesheet and we find that there is a
certain role attributed to respondent No.3 therein in the commission of the
alleged offences. As per the materials disclosed by the agency, his role was not
confined to just being a driver of a police vehicle so far as commission of the
alleged offences is concerned. The status report filed before us by the CBI is
on the same lines. Of course, these factors would have to be independently
assessed at the stage of trial on leading of evidence but we are considering
them only for the purpose of determining the question of bail of respondent
No.3.
It is a fact that, in ordinary circumstances, we ought not to invoke our
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to invalidate an
order granting bail to an accused. But this criteria, while dealing with the
question of granting bail, would not apply in a case of custodial death, where
police officials are arraigned as accused. Such alleged offences are of grave
and serious nature. The role of the Court in dealing with the plea for bail in
offences involving police officials has been explained by this Court in the case
of State of Jharkhand vs Sandeep Kumar [2024 INSC 179], which was
authored by one of us (Sanjay Kumar J.). This was a case in which
anticipatory bail was granted to a police official accused of, inter-alia,
interpolations in an FIR. It has been held in this decision:-
"9. In the light of these serious allegations made against no less than a
senior police officer, an essential cog in the machinery of law
enforcement, the High Court ought not to have taken a liberal view in
the matter for the mere asking. Considering the position held by the
respondent, even if he was suspended from service and the chargesheet
had already been filed against him, the possibility of his tampering
with the witnesses and the evidence was sufficiently high. That apart,
grant of such relief to a police officer facing allegations of
manipulating the investigation so as to favour an accused would send
out a wrong signal in society. It would be against public interest. 10.
No doubt, none of the provisions under which the respondent is alleged
to have committed offences entail imprisonment in excess of seven
years and most of them were bailable offences. Ordinarily, an accused
facing the prospect of incarceration, if proved guilty of such offences,
would be entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail. However, the same
standard would not be applicable when the accused is the Investigating
Officer, a police officer charged with the fiduciary duty of carrying
forward the investigation to its rightful conclusion so as to punish the
guilty. The respondent is alleged to have failed in this fundamental
duty as a police officer. This consideration must necessarily weigh in
with the nature of the offences and the possible punishment therefor.
Presumptions and other considerations applicable to a layperson facing
29
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
criminal charges may not carry the same weight while dealing with a
police officer who is alleged to have abused his office."
The present proceeding relates to an order granting bail in connection with an
offence much more serious in nature and, in our opinion, the same principle
ought to apply.
So far as the present appeal is concerned, we ought to make an exception from
the general approach on the question of granting bail and adopt a stricter
approach, primarily on two grounds which are in tandem with the principles
applied in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra):-
(i) The first one is that respondent No.3 is part of the police force and the
allegation is that of custodial death, in which he has been implicated. In cases
of this nature, having regard to the overall influence a member of a police
force may wield in connection with a case against them pertaining to custodial
death, a stricter view is to be taken on the question of granting bail.
(ii) Secondly, the charge is under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the
appellant has been enlarged on bail within 1 and ½ years of his detention. The
alleged offence is of grave and serious nature and that factor has not been
properly considered by the High Court.
Having regard to the contents of the chargesheet, we do not think this was a fit
case where he ought to have been enlarged on bail within one and a half years
of his initial detention. We, accordingly, set aside the order impugned and
direct respondent No.3 to surrender before the CBI Court within a period of
four weeks and once respondent No.3 surrenders, he shall be taken into
custody by the concerned Court.
We make it clear that our observations, made in the earlier part of the order,
purely relate to the question of grant of bail and these observations shall not in
any way influence the trial.
The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
17. The C.B.I. who was entrusted with the investigation submitted
charge-sheet against the applicant and other co-accused after finding the
following evidence against them, paragraph 16 (xxxi) of the charge-sheet
reads as under:-
"16 (xxxi). The aforesaid facts and circumstances establish that accused Ajay
Kumar Singh in criminal conspiracy with Raj Kumar Verma, Kamal Bihari
Bind, Jitendra Singh, Parva Kumar Singh, Ramkrit Yadav, Jaisheel Tiwari,
Angad Chaudhary, Shwet Prakash Singh, Rajan Singh and Durgeshwar Mishra
caused hurt to Dharmendra Yadav @ Buchu and Lalla Saroj with common
intention to extort confession. The above named accused persons further
caused grievous hurt to the deceased Krishna @ Pujari to extort confession
and subsequently committed murder of the deceased by inflicting such
grievous injuries, which were sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course
of nature. These accused Police offic"16 (xxxi). The aforesaid facts and
circumstances establish that accused Ajay Kumar Singh in criminal conspiracy
30
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
with Raj Kumar Verma, Kamal Bihari Bind, Jitendra Singh, Parva Kumar
Singh, Ramkrit Yadav, Jaisheel Tiwari, Angad Chaudhary, Shwet Prakash
Singh, Rajan Singh and Durgeshwar Mishra caused hurt to Dharmendra Yadav
@ Buchu and Lalla Saroj with common intention to extort confession. The
above named accused persons further caused grievous hurt to the deceased
Krishna @ Pujari to extort confession and subsequently committed murder of
tials have further created false record to justify their illegal acts and ostensibly
to show that the death of Krishna @ Pujari was a result of accident/beating by
unknown persons and not by physical torture during Police custody. Therefore
these accused persons have committed offences punishable U/s 34 r/w 302,
330, 331 and 218 r/w 120-B IPC and substantive offences thereof."
18. The applicant being a police personnel absconded during
investigation and proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. & u/s 83 Cr.P.C. were
drawn against him. He even absconded from the trial and then was
subsequently arrested. This clearly shows his conduct of not co-
operating in the investigation and trial and also likelihood of his again
absconding. Custodial deaths have always been viewed as grave
offences. Bail of identically placed co-accused Ramkrit Yadav and Raj
Kumar Verma have been rejected by this Court vide orders dated
17.08.2022 and 06.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
Nos. 10162 of 2022 (Ramkrit Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and
39462 of 2022 (Raj Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Another). No
ground for bail is made out.
19. In the present matter counter affidavit dated 24.10.2024 and short-
counter affidavit dated 10.12.2025 on behalf of the C.B.I.; rejoinder
affidavit dated 12.11.2024 and supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated
19.01.2026 and supplementary affidavit dated 06.11.2025 on behalf of
the applicant are on record which has also been perused.
20. The bail application is accordingly rejected.
21. Nevertheless, this Court is not oblivious of the applicant's right to
a speedy trial. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial, as per its
case routine and diary, and ensure that the no unnecessary adjournments
are granted to either of the parties so as to unnecessarily delay it.
31
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
(II) Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32338 of 2023
22. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri.
Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Mohabbat Bi,
Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vineet Vikram, learned counsel for the
first informant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned Special Public
Prosecutor for the C.B.I. and perused the records.
23. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail
application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated
17.08.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10162 of
2022 (Ramkrit Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Another).
24. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Ramkrit Yadav, seeking
enlargement on bail during trial in connection with R.C. No. 10(S)/2021,
under Sections 302, 394, 452, 504 I.P.C. registered at Police Station
C.B.I./S.S.B. Lucknow, District Lucknow.
25. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is as under:-
(i) The applicant is in jail since 27.11.2021.
(ii) There is a delay in trial in as much as 93 witnesses are to be
examined out of whom only 11 witnesses till date have been examined.
(iii) A handwriting examination report dated 07.04.2022 annexed as
Annexure-8 to the affidavit has been sent by the Central Forensic
Laboratory, C.B.I., New Delhi regarding documents consisting of
questioned signatures & writings with standard signatures & writings in
which the sample signature of the applicant were marked as S-102 and
S-103 but the result of examination is that the documents are of poor
quality reproduced copies and thus could not be studied properly and
thus the report is inconclusive to give any specific allegation against the
applicant regarding his complicity.
26. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. and learned counsel for the first
informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted as under:-
32
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
(i) This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail
application of the applicant was rejected on merits by a detailed order
dated 17.08.2022 by this Court.
(ii) The trial in the matter is going on in which 11 prosecution witnesses
have been examined.
(iii) The present case is a case of custodial death and thus looking to the
gravity and seriousness of offence bail granted to a co-accused Jitendra
Singh was cancelled by the Apex Court vide order dated 12.03.2024
passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9816 of 2023 (Ajay Kumar
Yadav Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & ORS.).
(iv) There is no new & fresh ground in this present second bail
application and thus the same be rejected.
27. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
records, it is evident that this is second bail application of the applicant.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide
order dated 17.08.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
10162 of 2022 (Ramkrit Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Another), the same
reads as under:-
"1. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abdul Saleem
Ahamad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the CBI and perused the
material on record.
2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been
filed by the applicant Ramkrit Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in
connection with R.C. No. 10(S)/2021, under Sections 302, 394, 452, 504 IPC
registered at P.S. C.B.I./S.S.B. Lucknow, District Lucknow.
3. The First Information Report of the present case was lodged on 12.02.2021 as
Case Crime No. 0038 of 2021, under Sections 302, 394, 452, 504 IPC, P.S. Baksa,
District Jaunpur in connection with an incident which is said to have taken place
from 11.02.2021 to 12.02.2021 by Ajai Kumar Yadav against S.O.G. Team, Jaunpur,
Ajai Kumar Singh S.O., Baksa Jaunpur and the accompanying persons of the S.O. of
Police Station Baksa, District Jaunpur alleging therein that on 11.02.2021 at about
03:00 am, the S.O.G. Team, Ajai Kumar Singh S.O. Baksa along with his
accompanying police force came to the house of the first informant and took his
brother Krishna Kumar Yadav @ Pujari son of Tilakdhari aged about 24 years to the
Police Station in spite of the fact that there was no criminal case lodged against his
brother in any Police Station in the District. His brother was a friendly person. His
brother has been taken by the S.O.G. Team and S.O. Baksa Ajai Kumar Singh for
33
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
being falsely implicated in a case and was detained at the Police Station. Further, in
the night at about 08:00 pm, the S.O. Baksa with his accompanying police team and
other police personnels being about ten in number barged in his house and broke
upon the lock of the box and took away Rs. 60,000/- and the articles. On being
stopped, they abused the ladies. Again at about 12:30 am, the S.O.G. Incharge and
the S.O. Baksa along with 10-12 police personnels came on a Bolero vehicle and
motorcycles and brought his brother to the house. His brother was not in a position to
stand and was shouting loudly to his mother to save him and was stating that the
police personnels will kill him. They took away a motorcycle which was in the
house. The first informant went to the Police Station but the police personnels did
not let him meet his brother. In the morning, he received information that his brother
has died in police custody. He states that his brother has been murdered by the police
personnels and requests that S.O. Baksa be directed to lodge the First Information
Report against the then S.O. Baksa, S.O.G. Team and other accompanying police
personnels for murder and loot and appropriate action be taken. The said application
was addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur.
4. The postmortem examination of Krishna Kumar Yadav @ Pujari was
conducted on 12.02.2021 from 09:10 pm. The doctor found the following ante-
mortem injuries on his persons:-
"a) Contusion present on both buttocks of size 30x20 cm, which is Bluish
Brown in colour.
b) Contusion present in both scapular regions of size 15x8 cm which is
Bluish Brown.
c) Contusion present on left arm laterally of size 10x8 cm which is Bluish
Brown in colour."
The doctor after noting the ante-mortem injuries gave his opinion as follows:-
"Above injuries are not sufficient for death."
The cause of death was opined as due to shock and syncope as a result of
ante-mortem myocardial infarction.
5. During investigation, the police sought an expert opinion on the injuries and
actual cause of death of the deceased. The Joint Director Medico Legal, State
Medico Legal Cell, Lucknow vide his letter opined as follows:-
"The cause of death established is shock, that is not due to Myocardial
Infarction but it can be precipitated by vasovegal inhibition or ante-mortem
injuries present on the victim's body especially the big ones which is not
checked in PM examination."
6. A judicial inquiry was also ordered which was taken up by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jaunpur being Judicial Inquiry No.1 of 2021 which was inconclusive in
so far as the purpose of it was concerned. It was stated therein that after the detailed
inquiry, the conclusion which comes is that the injuries received on the body of the
deceased were as a result of beating and tortured by the police or were received on
11.02.2021 at about 02:00 pm in village Birhadpur due to an accident with a
motorcycle and then by assault of passer-by. The inquiry was thus concluded. The
said report is annexure 5 to the affidavit.
7. A writ petition being Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 2998 of 2021 (Ajay Kumar
Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another) was filed by the first informant before this
34
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
Court with regards to his grievances in which by a detailed order dated 08.09.2021 a
Division Bench of this Court directed the CBI to investigate the present matter and
ordered the transfer of the matter to the CBI forthwith. The said writ petition is still
pending disposal before this Court. The said order dated 08.09.2021 is quoted herein-
below:-
"1. Heard Sri Sarvesh Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Pal,
learned Government Advocate assisted by Sri Roopak Chaubey, learned AGA for the
State-respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 and Sri Gyan Prakash, assisted by Sri Sanjay
Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.
2. It is a case of custodial death of a young boy aged about 24 years, namely, Krishna
Yadav @ Pujari. As per FIR No.0038/21, dated 12.02.2021 under Sections 302, 394,
452 & 504 I.P.C. P.S. - Baksa, District - Jaunpur, the SOG team and SO Baksa, Ajay
Kumar Singh came to the house of the deceased on 11.02.2021 about 03:00 P.M. and
took away the deceased with an intent to implicate him falsely and the deceased was
detained at the police station. At about 08:00 P.M. the S.O. Baksa and other
policemen (ten in numbers) forcibly entered in the house of the informant and after
breaking lock of the box took away Rs.60,000/- and other articles and used filthy
language against women family members of the deceased. At about 12.30 P.M. the
incharge SOG and SO Baksa, Ajay Kumar Singh and 10 - 12 policemen brought the
deceased who was not even able to stand and was loudly crying " माँ-माँ मुझे बचा लो
पुलिस वाले मुझे जान से मार देगें।" Policemen also took away the motorcycle kept in the
house and when the informant went to the police station he was not allowed to meet
with his brother (deceased) and in the morning, information was received that his
brother Krishna Yadav @ Pujari died in police custody who has been murdered by
the policemen.
3. On the other hand, the police has developed a story that as per G.D. Entries
Nos.05 and 06, dated 12.02.2021, the deceased was apprehended while he was
driving a motorcycle who fell, received injuries and could not fled away and he told
that in the afternoon of 11.02.2021 he was hit by a motorcycle and the public beaten
him. The arrest of the deceased has been shown at 10:25 P.M. on 11.02.2021. As per
G.D. the deceased was brought to the police station Baksha at 01:30 A.M. on
12.02.2021 and at the same time he was sent for first aid alongwith Sub Inspector
Sunil Kumar Tiwari, constable Manish Kumar and constable Samir Kumar and the
Doctor at the CHC referred the deceased for treatment to District Hospital, Jaunpur
and by the time they reached at the District Hospital Jaunpur, Krishana Yadav @
Pujari died and thus he was brought to the District Hospital as dead. Copy of G.D.
No.05 dated 12.02.2021 has been filed by the respondent no.2 as Annexure C.A. -2
to the counter affidavit dated 01.09.2021 and the G.D. Entry No.06 of even date and
time i.e. 12.02.2021 time 01:30 A.M., has been produced today by the learned
A.G.A. before us stating that inadvertently these pages could not be annexed with the
counter affidavit. In G.D. No.05 dated 12.02.2021 time 01:30 A.M. it has been
mentioned
that:
"अभियुक्त द्वारा बारबार कराहने पर पूँछने पर बताया कि साहब आज करीब 2.00 बजे दोपहर में
ग्राम विरहदपुर के पास एक मोटर साइकिल से टक्कर लग गया था। राहगीर मुझे उसके साथ
मिलकर मुझे काफी मारे पीटे थे। जिसकी वजह से मेरे शरीर में जगह जगह चोटे आयी है। जिसके
कारण दर्द हो रहा है। गिरफ्तारी की सूचना उसकी माँ को मौके पर ही दी जा रही है। किन्तु गवाही
पर हस्ताक्षर करने से मना कर रही है। दौरान गिरफ्तारी व बरामदगी मानवाधिकार आयोग व
35
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
मानवीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के निर्देशों का पालन किया गया अभियुक्त का यह कृ त्य धारा
392/411/414 भादवि का अपराध है। अतः कारण गिरफ्तारी बताकर समय करीब 22.25 बजे
हिरासत पुलिस में लिया गया फर्द मौके पर टार्ची व बिजली की रोशनी में लिखकर पढ़कर सभी
सम्बन्धित के अलामात बनवाये जा रहे है। फर्द की प्रति अभियुक्त को दी जा रही है।"
4. The F.I.R. lodged by the brother of the deceased being the first information report
No.0038/21, dated 12.02.2021 (at 16:35 hours) under Sections 302, 394, 452 & 504
I.P.C. P.S. - Baksa, District - Jaunpur, (in which SOG Team Jaunpur, Station House
Officer Baksa, namely, Ajay Kumar and police personnel of police station Baksa are
named as accused), is reproduced below:
"सेवा में श्रीमान पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर महोदय सविनय निवेदन है कि प्रार्थी अजय कु मार यादव
S/O तिलकधारी यादव ग्राम पकड़ी चकमिर्जापुर थाना बक्शा जिला जौनपुर का निवासी हूँ घटना
दिनांक 11.02.2021 समय 3 बजे दिन में S.O.G. टीम व S.O. बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह मय
हमराही पूरी फोर्स के साथ मेरे घर पर आये और मेरे भाई कृ ष्ण कु मार यादव उर्फ पुजारी पुत्र
तिलकधारी उम्र 24 वर्ष पकड़कर थाने ले गये। जबकि मेरे भाई के विरुद्ध कोई आपराधिक मुकदमा
जनपद के किसी थाने में नही है। मेरा भाई व्यवहार कु शल व्यक्ति थाना मेरे भाई को S.O.G. टीम व
S.O बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह फर्जी मुकदमें में फँ साने के नियत से थाने में बैठाये थे रात्रि 08.00 बजे
S.O. बक्शा मय हमराहियों व पुलिस वालों 10 की संख्या थी आये और घर में घुसकर बक्से का
ताला तोड़कर 60,000 रुपया व सामान S.O. बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह व पुलिस वाले उठा ले गये।
मना करने पर कि महिलाओ को भद्दी -2 गालियाँ दिये पुनः 12.30 बजे रात्रि में S.O.G. प्रभारी व
S.O. बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह मय हमराहियों बोलेरो 10 मोटर साइकिल से 10 से 12 पुलिस वालो
के साथ मेरे भाई को मेरे घर लेकर आये मेरा भाई खड़ा नहीं हो रहा था जोर-जोर चिल्ला रहा था माँ-
माँ मुझे बचा लो पुलिस वाले पुलिस वाले मुझे जान से मार देंगे। और घर पर रखी मोटर साइकिल भी
उठा ले गये। मैं थाने पर गया मुझे पुलिस वाले मिलने नहीं दिये। सुबह सूचना मिली कि पुलिस
कस्टडी में मेरे भाई कि मौत हो गयी मेरे भाई की हत्या उपरोक्त पुलिस वालो द्वारा की गयी है। अतः
श्रीमान जी से अनुरोध है कि S.O. बक्शा को आदेशित करें कि तत्कालीन S.O. बक्शा व S.O.G.
टीम मय हमराहीयों के विरुद्ध हत्या व लूट का मुकदमा दर्ज करें आवश्यक कार्यवाही करें।
प्रार्थी अजय कु मार यादव S/O तिलकधारी यादव ग्राम पकड़ी चकमिर्जापुर थाना बक्शा जौनपुर MO
9984669989 हस्ताक्षर अजय यादव। नोट- उक्त तहरीर व कायमी हे० मो० सुरेन्द्र कु मार द्वारा बोल
-बोलकर अक्षरशः कम्प्यूटर में फीड करवाया गया।"
5. As per the alleged post mortem report, the injuries are as under:-
1. Contusion present in both buttocks of size 30X 20 cm which bluish brown in
colour.
2. Contusion present in lower scapular region of size 15 X 8 cm which is bluish
brown colour.
3. Contusion present Lt. Arm lateral of size 10X 3 cm which is bluish brown colour.
6. As per post mortem report, the cause of death of deceased was "shock and
Syncope as a result of ante mortem, myocardial and Infarction".
7. Due to custodial death, a judicial inquiry was entrusted in the matter to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, who recorded statements of 16 inquiry witnesses. The
first set of inquiry witnesses are the family members of the deceased, the second set
of inquiry witnesses are independent witnesses and the 3rd set of inquiry witnesses
are doctors and the policemen including the Sub-Inspector Sunil Kumar Tiwari
36
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
(IW-14), Constable Manish Kumar (IW-12) Constable Samir Kumar (IW-13). The
statement of inquiry witnesses IW-12 Constable Manish Kumar, IW 13 Constable
Samir Kumar and IW-14 Sub-Inspector Sunil Kumar Tiwari as recorded by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate and incorporated by him in his report dated 25.06.2021 filed as
Annexure CA -12 to the counter affidavit of the respondent no.2 dated 01.09.2021,
are reproduced below :
"साक्षी आई० डब्लू० 12 का० मनीष कु मार, थाना बक्शा ने ब्यान किया है कि-
"8. The IW 16 Kansraj Yadav (an independent witness) has stated before the Judicial
Magistrate on 11.02.2021 as under :
"साक्षी आई॰डब्लू० 16 कं सराज यादव ने बयान किया है कि-
"मैं चाय की दूकान लगाता हूँ। दिनांक 11.02.2021 में मै अपनी दूकान पर था। दूकान के सामने
एस०ओ० बक्शा की गाड़ी खड़ी थी। उस समय लगभग 03.30 बज रहे थे। वहां पर 10-12 पुलिस
वाले थे। वहाँ सौरभ पाठक कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी को बैठाकर लेकर आया और मेरू दूकान के
सामने आकर मोटरसाईकिल रोक दी। पीछे से चन्द्रबदन व अजय यादव मोटरसाईकिल से आये।
कृ ष्णा यादव को पुलिसवालों ने गाड़ी में डाल लिया। अजय व चन्द्रबदन ने पुलिसवालो से पूछताछ
की यह हमें नहीं मालूम है।
कृ ष्णा यादव से मेरी दूकान के सामने किसी ने मारपीट नही की थी। वे लोग उसे लेकर वहां से चले
गये थे। अगले दिन मुझे पता चला कि कृ ष्णा यादव की मृत्यु हो गयी है। मेरे सामने कृ ष्णा यादव से
किसी ने कोई मारपीट नही की थी। मुझे इसके अलावा और कोई जानकारी नही है।"
9. IW-2 (Smt. Satta mother of the deceased) and IW-3 (Ajay Kumar Yadav informant
and brother of the deceased) and IW-4 (Pradip Yadav, brother of the deceased) have
stated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate as under:
"साक्षी आई॰डब्लू० 2 श्रीमती सत्ता ने बयान किया है कि-
"मेरे तीन लड़के थे। बडे का नाम अजय यादव, दूसरे बेटे का नाम कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी तथा छोटे बेटे
का प्रदीप यादव है। सौरव पंडित मेरे घर आये थे। तारीख याद नही है। बोले कि बक्शा के दरोगा जी
कृ ष्णा यादव को बुलाये है। 03.00 बजे सांय कृ ष्णा यादव को सौरव पंडित अपनी गाडी पर बैठाकर
ले गये थे। अजय यादव व गांव के चन्द्रबदन को मैं थाने पर भेजी थी, कि क्या बात है जो कृ ष्णा
यादव को पुलिस बुलायी है। फिर रात में 08.00 बजे 10-12 पुलिस वाले जिसमें कु छ सादी वर्दी में थे,
मेरे घर आये और घर में तोड़-फोड करने लगे। पेटी का ताला तोडकर 60,000/- रूपये लूट लिये। मैनें
रोकना चाहा तो मुझे घसीटकर बाहर कर दिया। पुलिस वाले लूटामार करके 60,000/- रूपये लूट कर
चले गये। रात मैं 12.30 बजे पुलिस वाले मेरे लड़के कृ ष्णा यादव को जिसको बहुत मारपीट रखा था
को लेकर मेरे घर आये और कहा कि डेढ लाख रुपया दो नही तो तुम्हारे लड़के को जान से मार देंगे।
मैनें कहा कि मैं पैसा नही दे सकती। फिर पुलिस वाले मेरे लड़के को लेकर वापिस चले गये। अगले
दिन सुबह 05.00 बजे पता चला कि कृ ष्णा की मृत्यु हो गयी है। मेरे घर में मेरे सामने कृ ष्णा यादव
को पुलिस वालो ने नही मारा था परंतु वह बुरी चोटिल था।"
दिनांक 11.02.2021 को रात्रि गश्त में था। रात्रि 10.25 से रात्रि गश्त में ड्यूटी में था। मैं एस०आई०
सुनील कु मार तिवारी के साथ था व हमराही का० समीर कु मार के साथ रात्रि गश्त की ड्यूटी में था।
रात्रि 01.30 से पौने 2.00 के बीच थाने से फोन आया और हम लोगों को थाने पर बुलाया गया। थाने
पर जाकर पूछने पर हम लोगों को बताया कि किसी मुलजिम की तबीयत खराब हो गयी है , उसको
अस्पताल जाना है। मुलजिम का नाम एस०एच०ओ० साहब ने दरोगा जी को बताया था कि उसका
नाम कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी है और यह भी बताया था कि कि इसके पेट में दर्द हो रहा है। फिर रात्रि
37
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
दो बजे के लगभग मैं व एस०आई० सुनील कु मार तिवारी व का० समीर कु मार द्वारा मुलजिम को
प्राथमिक स्वास्थ्य के न्द्र नौपेड़वा ले जाया गया। मैं कृ ष्णा यादव के शरीर पर कोई चोट नहीं देखा।
कृ ष्णा यादव ने ऐसा कोई कथन नही किया था कि उसके साथ किसी पुलिसकर्मी ने मारपीट की है।
अस्पताल थाने से लगभग दो कि०मी० की दूरी पर है। अस्पताल से डाक्टर साहब ने कृ ष्णा यादव को
जिला अस्पताल रेफर कर दिया था। उसकी तबीयत उस समय काफी खराब थी परन्तु वह मार पीट
किये जाने की कोई बात या शिकायत नही कर रहा था। सामुदायिक चिकित्सालय से कृ ष्णा यादव
को जिला अस्पताल एं बुलेन्स द्वारा ले जाया गया था। मैं जिला अस्पताल नही गया था।"
साक्षी आई० डब्लू० 13 का० समीर कु मार, थाना बक्शा ने बयान किया है कि-
"दिनांक 11.02.2021 को रात्रि में मैं एस०आई० सुनील कु मार तिवारी व हमराही का० मनीष कु मार
के साथ रात्रि गश्त में था कि रात्रि 01.30 से पौने 2.00 के बीच थाने से फोन आया और हम लोगों को
थाने पर बुलाया गया। थाने पर जाकर पूछने पर हम लोगों को बताया कि किसी मुलजिम की तबीयत
खराब हो गयी है, उसको अस्पताल जाना है। मुलजिम का नाम एस०एच०ओ० साहब ने दरोगा जी
को बताया था कि उसका नाम कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी है और यह भी बताया था कि इसके पेट में दर्द हो
रहा है। फिर रात्रि दो बजे के लगभग मुलजिम को मेरे एस०आई० सुनील कु मार तिवारी व का० मनीष
कु मार द्वारा प्राथमिक स्वास्थ्य के न्द्र नौपेडवा ले जाया गया। मैनें कृ ष्णा यादव के शरीर पर कोई चोट
नहीं देखी। कृ ष्णा यादव ने ऐसा कोई कथन नही किया था कि उसके साथ किसी पुलिसकर्मी ने
मारपीट की है। अस्पताल थाने से मात्र दो कि०मी० की दूरी पर है। अस्पताल से डाक्टर साहब ने
कृ ष्णा यादव को जिला अस्पताल रेफर कर दिया था। उसकी तबीयत उस समय काफी खराब थी।
परंतु वह मारपीट किये जाने की कोई बात या शिकायत नही कर रहा था। सामुदायिक चिकित्सालय
से कृ ष्णा यादव को जिला अस्पताल एं बुलेन्स द्वारा ले जाया गया था। मैं जिला अस्पताल नही गया
था। वही से थाने वापस आ गया था।"
साक्षी आई० डब्लू० 14 उपनिरीक्षक सुनील कु मार तिवारी, थाना बदशा ने बयान किया है कि-
"दिनांक 11.02.2021 को थाना बक्शा पर रात्रि अधिकारी के रूप में मेरी ड्यूटी थी। मैं अपने
हमराहियों का० मनीष कु मार व का॰समीर कु मार के साथ लगभग 10.40 बजे थाने से रवाना होकर
रात्रि गश्त में भ्रमण पर था कि रात्रि 01.30 से पौने 2.00 के बीच थाने से फोन आया और हम लोगों
को थाने पर बुलाया गया। थाने पर जाकर पूछने पर हम लोगों को बताया कि किसी मुलजिम की
तबीयत खराब हो गयी है, उसको अस्पताल जाना है। थानाध्यक्ष महोदय से पूछने पर उन्होनें बताया
मुलजिम का नाम कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी है और यह भी बताया था कि इसके पेट में दर्द हो रहा है।
फिर तुरंत ही मैं उपनिरीक्षक अपने हमराहियों के साथ मुलजिम कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी को लेकर
प्राथमिक स्वास्थ के न्द्र नौपेडवा गये। जहाँ पर वह स्वंय ही गाड़ी से उतर कर अस्पताल के अंदर गया
था तथा डाक्टर साहब द्वारा उसको देखा गया व उसका इलाज किया गया। मैंनें मुलजिम कृ ष्णा
यादव उर्फ पुजारी के शरीर पर कोई चोट व खरोंच नही देखा था तथा उसने मुझसे व मेरे हमराहियों
से भी कोई मारपीट, चोट खरोंच का जिक्र नही किया था। डाक्टर साहब द्वारा जब उससे पूछा गया
तो उसने बताया था कि पेट में दर्द हो रहा है। यह बात मैनें अस्पताल में उसके मुँह से सुना था।
अस्पताल थाने से करीब दो किलोमीटर की दूरी पर है। डाक्टर साहब ने वहाँ पर मौजूद किसी अन्य
व्यक्ति से 108 नम्बर पर फोन करवाया था तथा बताया कि इसकी तबीयत खराब है, इसको जिला
चिकित्सालय रेफर किया जा रहा है। तुरंत ही फोन करने पर 108 एं बुलेंन्स सी०एच०सी० नौपेडवा पर
आयी व कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी को जिला चिकित्सालय जौनपुर लेकर गयी थी। लेकिन मैं
थानाध्यक्ष महोदय को सारी बात बताकर वापस रात्रि गश्त भ्रमण हेतु थाना क्षेत्र चला गया था।"
8. The IW 16 Kansraj Yadav (an independent witness) has stated before the Judicial
Magistrate on 11.02.2021 as under :
38
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
"साक्षी आई॰डब्लू० 16 कं सराज यादव ने बयान किया है कि-
"मैं चाय की दूकान लगाता हूँ। दिनांक 11.02.2021 में मै अपनी दूकान पर था। दूकान के सामने
एस०ओ० बक्शा की गाड़ी खड़ी थी। उस समय लगभग 03.30 बज रहे थे। वहां पर 10-12 पुलिस
वाले थे। वहाँ सौरभ पाठक कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी को बैठाकर लेकर आया और मेरू दूकान के
सामने आकर मोटरसाईकिल रोक दी। पीछे से चन्द्रबदन व अजय यादव मोटरसाईकिल से आये।
कृ ष्णा यादव को पुलिसवालों ने गाड़ी में डाल लिया। अजय व चन्द्रबदन ने पुलिसवालो से पूछताछ
की यह हमें नहीं मालूम है। कृ ष्णा यादव से मेरी दूकान के सामने किसी ने मारपीट नही की थी। वे
लोग उसे लेकर वहां से चले गये थे। अगले दिन मुझे पता चला कि कृ ष्णा यादव की मृत्यु हो गयी है।
मेरे सामने कृ ष्णा यादव से किसी ने कोई मारपीट नही की थी। मुझे इसके अलावा और कोई
जानकारी नही है।"
9. IW-2 (Smt. Satta mother of the deceased) and IW-3 (Ajay Kumar Yadav informant
and brother of the deceased) and IW-4 (Pradip Yadav, brother of the deceased) have
stated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate as under:
"साक्षी आई॰डब्लू० 2 श्रीमती सत्ता ने बयान किया है कि-
"मेरे तीन लड़के थे। बडे का नाम अजय यादव, दूसरे बेटे का नाम कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी तथा छोटे बेटे
का प्रदीप यादव है। सौरव पंडित मेरे घर आये थे। तारीख याद नही है। बोले कि बक्शा के दरोगा जी
कृ ष्णा यादव को बुलाये है। 03.00 बजे सांय कृ ष्णा यादव को सौरव पंडित अपनी गाडी पर बैठाकर
ले गये थे। अजय यादव व गांव के चन्द्रबदन को मैं थाने पर भेजी थी, कि क्या बात है जो कृ ष्णा
यादव को पुलिस बुलायी है। फिर रात में 08.00 बजे 10-12 पुलिस वाले जिसमें कु छ सादी वर्दी में थे,
मेरे घर आये और घर में तोड़-फोड करने लगे। पेटी का ताला तोडकर 60,000/- रूपये लूट लिये। मैनें
रोकना चाहा तो मुझे घसीटकर बाहर कर दिया। पुलिस वाले लूटामार करके 60,000/- रूपये लूट कर
चले गये। रात मैं 12.30 बजे पुलिस वाले मेरे लड़के कृ ष्णा यादव को जिसको बहुत मारपीट रखा था
को लेकर मेरे घर आये और कहा कि डेढ लाख रुपया दो नही तो तुम्हारे लड़के को जान से मार देंगे।
मैनें कहा कि मैं पैसा नही दे सकती। फिर पुलिस वाले मेरे लड़के को लेकर वापिस चले गये। अगले
दिन सुबह 05.00 बजे पता चला कि कृ ष्णा की मृत्यु हो गयी है। मेरे घर में मेरे सामने कृ ष्णा यादव
को पुलिस वालो ने नही मारा था परंतु वह बुरी चोटिल था।"
साक्षी आई० डब्लू० 3 अजय कु मार यादव ने बयान किया है कि-
"मैं ए०सी० मैके निक के हैल्पर के रूप में एक साल से काम कर रहा हूँ। उसके पहले पढता था। हम
तीन भाई थे। मृतक कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी मंझला भाई था। दिनांक 11.02.2021 को समय
03.00 बजे सौरभ पाठक पुत्र जितेन्द्र पाठक बाईक से आया जोकि कृ ष्णा यादव के पास आता
जाता था। मैनें उसको आते हुए देखा था। वो आकर बोला कि एस०ओ० साहब रोड पर खड़े है और
तुझको बुला रहे है। रोड घर से 150 मीटर दूरी पर है। कृ ष्णा उसकी बाईक पर बैठकर चला गया। मैं
और चन्द्रबदन उसके पीछे -पीछे बाईक से गये थे। रोड पर जाकर सौरभ बाईक रोक दिया। जहाँ पर
पुलिस वाले थे, जिसमें से कु छ वर्दीधारी नहीं थे। रोड से कृ ष्णा यादव को जबरदस्ती बैठाने लगे तो
मैनें विरोध किया। तो उन्होंनें कहा कि मैं एस॰ओ॰जी॰ से है पूछताछ के लिए ले जा रहे है। उस टीम
में एस०ओ० अजय कु मार भी थे। बाकि के लोग को मैं नहीं पहचानता। फिर पुलिस वाले कृ ष्णा
यादव उर्फ पुजारी को गाड़ी में बैठाकर ले गये। ये घटना कं सराज यादव जिसकी रोड पर चाय की
दुकान है ने भी देखी। मैं वापस घर चला आया। घर आकर घटना के बारे में लोगों को बताया। करीब
04.30 बजे मैं तथा चन्द्रबदन थाना बक्शा गये। जब हम थाने पर गये तो देखा कि कृ ष्णा जमीन पर
बैठा था। उसने हमको बताया कि पुलिस वाले उसको मारे-पीटे है। वह कह रहा था कि भाई हमको
बचा लो, पुलिस वाले बहुत मार रहे है। हमको पुलिस वालो ने उससे मिलने नही दिया और पुजारी को
39
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
उठाकर अंदर ले गये। हम लोगों को गाली देकर ताने के भगा दिया। वहां से मैनें बाहर निकलकर
एस०पी० साहब को फोन करके तथा व्हाटसएप करके बताया। परंतु एस०पी० साहब ने संतोषजनक
जवाब नही दिया। मेरी उनसे फोन पर बात हुई थी। फिर मैं घर चला गया। रात के 08.00 बजे के
करीब 10-12 पुलिसवाले जिसमें कु छ वर्दीधारी नहीं थे आये और घर में घुस गये तथा दरवाजा पीटने
लगे। मैं तथा मेरी माताजी ने कृ ष्णा यादव के बारे में पूछा तो उन लोगो ने कहा कि वो थाने पर है।
फिर पुलिसवालो ने मेरे छोटे भाई की पत्नी कोमल जो अंदर के कमरे में सोई थी उसको जबरदस्ती
दरवाजा खुलावकर हाथ से पकड़कर निकाल दिया। दो मोबाईल और मोटरसाईकिल जबरदस्ती ले
गये। रात में पुनः 12.30 बजे 10-12 पुलिसवाले मेरे भाई को लेकर आये जिसमें एस०ओ० अजय
कु मार सिंह भी थे। मेरा भाई रो पीट रहा था और चल नही पा रहा था। दो पुलिसवाले उसको पकड़
कर लाये और बाहर पड़ी चारपाई पर डाल दिया। मेरा भाई जोर जोर से कह रहा था कि जो भी पैसा
हो इनको लाकर दे दो और हमको बचा लोगही तो ये लोग मुझे मार डालेंगे। मेरी माताजी मेरे भाई को
पकड़कर रोने लगी, कहने लगी जो भी पैसा था वो तो आप लोग पहले ही लूट चुके हो फिर एस०ओ०
अजय कु मार ने कहा कि साला प्रधानी लडेगा, मैं इसको प्रधानी लड़ाता हूँ। फिर एस०ओ० अजय
कु मार सिंह ने कहा कि अगर अपने लड़के को सही सलामत देखना चाहते हो तो डेढ लाख रुपया
लेकर थाने आओ नही तो इसे गोली मार देंगे। हम रात में थाने पर नही गये। सुबह 06.00 06.30 बजे
हल्ला होने लगा कि कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी को पुलिस वालो ने जान से मरा दिया। इसके बाद
लगभग 08.00 बजे एस०पी० सिटी के आवास पर गया और उनको पूरी बात बतायी। एस०पी० सिटी
ने दिलाशा देकर कहा कि ऐसी कोई बात नही है तुम्हारा भाई जल्दी छू ट जायेगा। एस०पी० सिटी ने
एक दरोगा को बुलाया जिनका नाम राजेश यादव है जो शायद सरपतहां थाने से है बुलवाया। फिर
एस०पी० सिटी अंदर चले गये और एस०ओ० राजेश यादव हमको बाहर ले गये। मुझे बताया कि
तुम्हारे भाई की मृत्यु हो गयी है। वो बोले जो होना था वो हो गया, उनको ऐसा नहीं करना चाहिए था।
फिर वो मुझे गाड़ी में बैठाकर जबरदस्ती सदे अस्पताल ले गये। वहां पर 100-200 पुलिसवाले पहले
से मौजूद थे। और तमाम लोग भी थे। बड़ी कहने सुनने के बाद हमे तथा प्रमोद यादव को हमारे भाई
का मुंह दिखाये। मेरे भाई के हाथ काले हो रहे थे। पूरी पीठ काली हो गयी थी। रीढ की हड् डी के पास
खून निकल रहा था। फिर हम लोगो को बाहर निकाल दिये। पुलिस वाले रिपोर्ट लिखने को तैयार नहीं
थे, जब लोगों ने दबाव बनाया तो सांय के समय रिपोर्ट लिखी गयी। रिपोर्ट मैनें लिखायी थी। जो
दोपहर में 03.00 बजे पुलिसवाले रोड पर से पुजारी को उठा कर ले गये थे तो उस समय उसे कोई
नही मारा था। जब हम थाने पर गये पुलिसवाले जो 4-5 की संख्या में थे डण्डे व बेल्ट से मार रहे थे।
जब रात में पुलिसवाले घर लेकर आये थे तब किसी पुलिसवाले ने ने नही मारा था। मेरी माताजी को
प्लास्टिक का पाईप मारे थे। सब पुलिसवाले भद्दी-भद्दी गालियाँ दे रहे थे। मेरे भाई का कोई
आपराधिक इतिहास नही था। वह सीधा-सीधा व्यक्ति था। मेरे भाई को उठाने में सौरभ पाठक का
पूरा हाथ है परंतु पुलिसवाले उसके खिलाफ कोई कार्यवाही नही कर रहे है। मेरा भाई पूर्ण रूप से
स्वस्थ था, उसे कोई बिमारी नही थी। उसकी मृत्यु पुलिसवालों के मारने के कारण से हुई है।"
साक्षी आई॰डब्लू० 4 प्रदीप यादव ने बयान किया है कि-
"हम लोग तीन भाई थे। जिसमें मैं सबसे छोटा हूँ। अजय यादव सबसे बडा, कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी
बीच वाला भाई था। मै मुम्बई में रहकर ए०सी० मैके निक का काम करता हूँ। मेरे पिताजी भी मुम्बई में
रहकर गाड़ी चलाते है। दिनांक 11.02.2021 को मेरी पत्नी कोमल यादव ने फोन करके बताया कि
मेरे भाई कृ ष्णा को पुलिस उठा ले गयी है। मेरे पूछने पर उसने बताया कि थाना बक्शा की पुलिस
जिस में एस०ओ० अजय सिंह व एस०ओ०जी० की टीम रोड पर से उठा कर ले गयी है। उसने बताया
कि सौरभ पाठक उसको बुलाकर ले गया था। पुलिसवाले कह रहे थे कि पूछताछ करके छोड़ देंगे
और हम लोग निश्चिंत हो गये। फिर मेरी पत्नी ने फोन करके बताया कि पुलिसवाले घर पर आकर
पैसा और घर का सामान लूट ले गधे है, तब हम घबरा गये और अन्य लोगो से बातचीत किया। परंतु
40
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
उन लोगों द्वारा कोई संतोषजनक जवाब नही दिया गया। रात 12.30 के बाद मेरी पत्नी द्वारा पुनः
फोन करके रोते हुए बताया गया कि पुलिसवाले भईया को लेकर आये थे। कु ल 10-12 की संख्या में
थे। कु छ वर्दी नही पहने थे। उसने बताया कि पुलिसवाले ज्यादामार दिये है , जिससे वह चल नही पा
रहा है। भईया रो रहे थे कि जो भी पैसा है देकर मेरी जान बचा लो नही तो ये लोग मुझे जान से मार
देगें। एस०ओ० अजय सिंह ने भद्दी-भद्दी गालियां दी और कहा कि अगर पैसा नही दोगे तो सुबह तेरे
बेटे की लाश मिलेगी। यह बात मेरी पत्नी द्वारा मुझे फोन करके बतायी गयी थी। सुबह 06.00 बजे
को 12 तारीख को मेरी पत्नी का फोन आया कि पुलिसवालो ने कृ ष्णा यादव को मार डाला है और
सदर अस्पताल में छोड़कर चले गये है। हम लोग उन्हें देखने जा रहे है। फिर मैं, मेरे पिताजी, मेरे बडे
पापा का लड़का विनोद यादव फलाईट द्वारा जौनपुर आये। जौनपुर सदर 07.00 बजे के बीच में
पहुँचे। मैनें अस्पताल सांयकाल 06.30 और मेरे पूरे परिवार ने भाई के शव को देखा था। इसकी कमर
पर व आँख, नाक व कान से खून आ रहा था। फिर हम लोगों को अस्पताल से हटा दिया गया।"
साक्षी आई॰डब्लू० 5 डा० मनीष कु मार के सरवानी सी०एच०सी० सुजानगंज (पोस्टमार्टम कर्ता) ने
ब्यान किया है कि-
मुख्या चिकित्साधिकारी, जौनपुर के आदेश के अनुसार मेरी ड्यूटी दिनांक 12.02.2021 को
पोस्टमार्टम हाऊस, जौनपुर लगायी गयी थी। मेरे अलावा मेरे पैनल में डा० शाहिद अख्तर,
सी०एच०सी० मडियाहूँ व डा०प्रवीण कु मार, सी०एच०सी० रेहटी एं व फार्मासिस्ट अवधेश कु मार,
पुलिस लाईन अस्पताल मौजूद थे। दिनांक 12.02.2021 को ए०डी०एम० के आदेशानुसार रात्रि
09.10 पी०एम० पर कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी का शव विच्छेद शुरू किया गया। शव विच्छेद की
कार्यावाही की विडियोग्राफी शुभम मौर्या द्वारा की गयी। शव को का० अरविन्द कु मार व का० मनीष
कु मार थाना बक्शा द्वारा पोस्टमार्टम हाऊस लाया गया था। पोस्टमार्टम रिपोर्ट पर मेरे पैनल द्वारा
निम्न चोटे पायी गयी-
(1) Contusion of size 30 x 20 cm दोनों नितम्बों पर जोकि लाल भूरा रंग लिये हुए था।
(2) Contusion of size 15 x 08 cm लगभग उपरी पीठ पर दोनो तरफ कं धो के पास
जोकि लाल भूरा रंग लिये हुए था।
(3) Contusion of size 10 x 08 cm लगभग बाये भुजा पर बाहर तरफ था जोकि नीला
रंग लिए हुए था।
उक्त तीनों चोटों के अलावा अन्य कोई जाहिरा चोट नही थी। कोई हड्डी भी टूटी नही थी। किसी
धारदार हथियार की भी कोई चोट नही थी।
उक्त चोटे ऐसी प्रकृ ती की नही थी, जिसमें कि किसी की मृत्यु प्रायः सम्भाव्य हो।
जब शव का विच्छेद किया गया तो प्रथमतः छाती खोलने पर यह पाया गया कि दोनो फे फड़ो में खून
भरा हुआ था। पसली में कोई दिक्तत नही थी। सांस नली सामान्य थी। गर्दन में कोई दिक्कत नही
थी। हृदय के दो चैम्बरों में खून भरा था। हृदय के दाहिने चैम्बर Ventricle' की पिछली दिवार पर 2 x
1 cm का सफे द धब्बा था। जो कि चिन्हित करता है कि उक्त धब्बा MI (दिल का दौरा) 'हृदयाघात'
होने की वजह से सम्भाव्य है।"
10. As per story developed by the police, the deceased was brought to the police
station at about 01:30 A.M. on 12.02.2021 after his arrest at about 10:25 P.M. on
11.02.2021 and he was sent to CHC Naupedwa, Jaunpur, at about 02:00 AM on
12.02.2021 for first aid, where Doctor referred him for District Hospital and when
the deceased was brought to District Hospital by ambulance he was found dead.
41
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
11. Learned A.G.A. has produced before us case diary to impress that as per an
alleged slip issued by the Doctor on emergency duty in Amar Sahid Uma Nath Singh
District Hospital Jaunpur dated 12.2.2021, the deceased Krishna Yadav was brought
dead at the Hospital at about 03:35 A.M. by the Constable Manish Kumar and
Constable Samir Kumar, P.S. Baksa.
12. A supplementary affidavit dated 09.08.2021 has been filed by the petitioner
annexing therewith three photographs of the dead body of the deceased Krishna
Yadav. Averments in this regard have been made by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of
the supplementary affidavit dated 09.08.2021 which have not been denied or
disputed by the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.3 in separate counter
affidavits filed by them. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent
no.2 by Chaub Singh, Circle Officer Badlapur, District - Jaunpur who replied the
contents of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the aforesaid supplementary affidavit, in paragraph
33 of his counter affidavit as under :
"That the contents of paragraph nos. 2 & 3 of the supplementary affidavit refer to
post mortem report dated 12.02.2021 and colour photographs of the deceased
Krishna Yadav @ Pujari and as per the post mortem report there were three injuries
on the person of the deceased and as per opinion of the doctor the said injuries are
not sufficient for death and the cause of death of deceased is Shock & Syncope as a
result of ante-mortem myocardial infraction and the viscera was preserved for any
intoxication. As per the viscera report dated 01.07.2021 issued by the Forensic
Science Laboratory, Ram Nagar , Varanasi no Chemical poison was found in
viscera."
13. In his counter affidavit dated 06.09.2021, Sri Ajay Kumar Sahani, Superintendent
of Police, Jaunpur, has replied paragraph 3 of the aforesaid supplementary affidavit,
as under :
"That in reply to the contents of paragraph no.3 of the supplementary affidavit, it is
submitted that the post-mortem report shows that there were 3 injuries on the person
of deceased and as per the penal of doctors these injuries were not sufficient for
death. The cause of death was due to shock and syncope as a result of ante-mortem
myocardial infarction."
14. On 03.09.2021 this writ petition was heard at length and a detailed order dated
03.09.2021 was passed, observing as under :-
Despite all these facts well on record and for the reasons best known to the
respondents, they have not taken any action against the accuseds pursuant to the
impugned FIR but as a matter of eye wash transfer or suspension or attachment order
of accuseds were passed. The custodial death of deceased is undisputed. Serious
allegations supported by the inquiry witnesses are well on record and and yet for the
reasons best known to the respondents, no action has been taken against the accused,
instead, it prima facie appears that effort is being made to linger the investigation and
carry it in a direction so the accused policemen may escape.
15. When this matter was heard on 06.09.2021 in presence of the Superintendent of
Police Jaunpur, this court noted in the order the admission and submissions made by
the State-respondents, as under :
"Heard Sri Sarvesh Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Pal,
learned Government Advocate assisted by Sri Roopak Chaubey, learned AGA for the
State-respondents.
42
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
On oral request, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Central
Bureau of Investigation through its Director as respondent no. 5 in the array of
parties. He undertakes to serve a copy of the writ petition along with supplementary
affidavit and a copy of this order upon the counsel appearing on behalf of C.B.I.,
during course of the day.
Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 3 dated 6.9.2021 has been filed today,
which is taken on record. Sri Ajay Kumar Sahni, Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur is
present in the Court in compliance of the order dated 3.9.2021.
Learned Government Advocate admits that the photographs of the deceased filed
along with the supplementary affidavit dated 9.8.2021 is undisputed. The contents of
paragraph no. 3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 9.8.2021 regarding the aforesaid
photographs, have neither been disputed nor denied by the respondent no. 3 in
paragraph no. 43 of the counter affidavit dated 6.9.2021. He states that accused
police men are absconding and efforts are being made for their arrest. He submits
that the present Superintendent of Police namely Sri Ajay Kumar Sahni has taken the
charge on 17.6.2021 and thus he was not the Superintendent of Police at the time of
registration of first information report no. 0038 of 2021 dated 12.2.2021 under
Section 302, 394, 452, 504 IPC in which the SOG team Jaunpur, S.O. Baksa, Ajay
Kumar Singh and S.O. Hamrah, Thana Baksa Jaunpur were the accused. He states
that one Sri Rajkaran Naiyar was the then Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a day's time to file
rejoinder affidavit.
Put up as fresh on 8.9.2021 at 10:00 A.M. for further hearing before this Bench."
16. The facts as briefly noted above prima facie reveal that the deceased was lifted
by the S.H.O. Police Station Baksa and other policemen on 11.02.2021 and,
thereafter he remained in the custody. The story of accident of the deceased in the
afternoon of 11.02.2021 is a story prima facie developed by the police so as to give a
different colour for the death of the deceased. As per own case of the police and G.D.
entry, the deceased was arrested at about 10:25 A.M. on 11.02.2021 but he was
brought to the police station at about 01:30 A.M. on 12.02.2021 and no treatment
was required. Surprisingly, telephone calls were made to Sub-inspector Sunil Kumar
Tiwari, Constable Manish Kumar and Constable Sameer Kumar between 01:30 A.M.
to 01:45 A.M. requiring them to come to the police station to carry the deceased for
first aid/ treatment. As per statement given by these three police personnel before the
C.J.M., Jaunpur, they took the deceased at about 02:00 A.M. on 12.02.2021 to bring
him to C.H.C. Naupedwa, Jaunpur.
17. As per police story, the aforesaid S.I. Sunil Kumar Tiwari, Constables Manish
Kumar and Sameer Kumar also brought the deceased to District Hospital, Jaunpur.
But perusal of their statement before the C.J.M. reveals that they had neither carried
nor brought the deceased to the District Hospital rather they returned from C.H.C.
Nawpedwa. As per photo-stat copy of the entry in the register at C.H.C. Nawpedwa,
Jaunpur at serial No.E-3092, Krishna Yadav, when brought to the C.H.C., Naupedwa,
Jaunpur, was unconscious and his B.P. and P.P. were not found and after thorough
examination, the doctor referred him to District Hospital, Jaunpur at 01:55 A.M. The
aforesaid photo stat copy of the register of C.H.C. Naupedwa, Jaunpur, has been
produced before us by the learned A.G.A. stating it to be part of the case diary. Thus,
when as per own case of the respondents, they took the deceased Krishna Yadav at
about 02.00 A.M. on 12.02.2021 from the police station Baksa, then how it is
43
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
possible that the doctor after thorough examination, has referred the deceased for
District Hospital at 01:55 A.M. That apart, the doctor at the C.H.C. has found the
deceased in an unconscious condition and his B.P. and P.P. were not found whereas
the G.D. entry shows that the deceased was merely making some complain of pain in
stomach. Surprisingly, the aforesaid three policemen who brought Krishna Yadav to
C.H.C. Naupedwa, have stated that they have not seen any scratch or injury on the
body of Krishna Yadav who has also not told about injuries and who told the doctor
about pain in stomach, WHEREAS as per entries made by the doctor in the register
at the C.H.C. Naupedwa, the Krishna Yadav was unconscious and his B.P. and P.P.
were not found. Thus, the police story and G.D. entries are prima facie false and a
criminal act to divert investigation in a wrong direction by manipulating evidences
so as to defeat the rule of law and fair investigation. The respondents have set up a
case that the deceased was carried by the aforesaid Sub Inspector Sunil Kumar
Tiwari, Constable Manish Kumar and Constable Sameer Kumar from the police
station to C.H.C. Naupedwa, Jaunpur and thereafter from the C.H.C., Naupedwa to
the District Hospital Jaunpur, but these three persons have stated in their statement
before the C.J.M., Jaunpur that they carried the deceased only upto C.H.C.
Naupedwa Jaunpur and thereafter, they came back. Thus, the story developed by the
respondents that the deceased was brought to District Hospital, Jaunpur by the
aforesaid Sub Inspector and Constable, is itself not supported by their statements.
18. It is admitted case of the respondents that the deceased had received various
injuries, which is reflected from the G.D. Entry No. 05. The statement made by the
mother and brother of the deceased before the C.J.M., Jaunpur regarding brutal
beating by the police and consequent injuries to the deceased, prima facie
corroborates with the photographs of the deceased and a little reference in the G.D.
entry No. 5. Surprisingly, the post mortem report does not contain the injuries
present on vital part of the body of the deceased which can be easily seen in the
undisputed photographs filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit. Thus, prima
facie, post mortem report also appears to be manipulated or procured under undue
influence.
19. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that the incident of
lifting the deceased by the Police on 11.02.2021 was informed to the Superintendent
of Police Jaunpur over telephone (mobile phone) and by sending messages but no
action was taken. Copy of call details and messages have been filed as Annexure
No.3 which have not been disputed by the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 both in their
counter affidavits. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated about
some independent eye witnesses and some family members who submitted their
notarized statement before the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police,
Jaunpur. Copies of statements of Ajay, Kanshraj, Chandrabhan and Saraswati Devi
have been filed collectively as Annexure No.2. But in their counter affidavits the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vaguely denied it without denying the fact of statements and
its contents. From the records of the writ petition and the report of the C.J.M.,
Jaunpur dated 25.6.2021 it appears that the deceased was preparing for election of
Village Panchayat and he was threatened by the SHO Baksha.
20. The statements given by witness and filed alongwith the writ petition as referred
in paras above, are reproduced below :-
Statement of Ajay Kumar Yadav
सेवा में,
44
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
श्रीमान जिलाधिकारी/ पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर विषयः मु० अ० सं०- 38/2021 अन्तर्गत
धारा-30, 394, 504 आई० पी० सी० थाना-बक्शा, जिला-जौनपुर में 161 Cr.P.C के बयान के
सम्बन्ध में-
हलफनामा मिनजानिब अजय पुत्र तिलकधारी उम्र त० 30 वर्ष सा० मौ०- चकमिर्जापुर, थाना-बक्शा,
जिला-जौनपुर हस्व जैल हैः-
दफा-1 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मैं उपरोक्त नाम व पते का मूल निवासी हूँ तथा मेरे नाम व
बल्दियत का कोई अन्य व्यक्ति मेरे मौजे मे नही है।
दफा-2 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मुकदमा उपरोक्त में वादी हूं।
दफा-3 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी पुत्र तिलकधारी उ० त० 24 वर्ष सा० मौ
चकमिर्जापुर, थाना-बक्शा, जिला-जौनपुर मेरा छोटा भाई था।
दफा-4 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मेरा छोटा भाई कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी के ऊपर जनपद जौनपुर के
किसी भी थाने में कोई मुकदमा नही था कृ ष्णा एक सीधा-साधा व्यवहार कु शल लड़का था। और वह
प्रधान पद के लिये तैयारी कर रहा था।
दफा-5 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि दिनांक 11.02.2021 को समय करीब 3 बजे दिन की है। मैं व
मेरा छोटा भाई कृ ष्णा और मेरे मित्र चन्द्रबदन यादव घर पर बैठकर बातचीत कर रहे थे कि मोटर
साइकिल से सौरभ पाठक पुत्र जितेन्द्र पाठक सा० मौ०-सिहीपुर, थाना लाइन बाजार, जिला-जौनपुर
कृ ष्णा के घर पर आये तथा कृ ष्णा से कहे की रोड पर चलो बक्शा S.O अजय कु मार सिंह बुला रहे
है। तब कृ ष्णा सौरभ पाठक की मोटर साइकिल पर बैठकर उसके साथ चला गया।
दफा-6 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मैं अजय व मेरे मित्र चन्द्रबदन के साथ उनके पीछे -पीछे मेन
रोड पर पहुँचा तो सौरभ ने मोटर साइकिल ले जाकर कं शराज यादव की दुकान के सामने मेन रोड पर
रोक दिया। वहां पहले से खड़े S.O बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह व कु छ पुलिस वाले वहां थे कृ ष्णा को
जबरदस्ती अपनी गाड़ी में बैठाकर लेकर जाने लगे मैं व चन्द्रबदन ने पुलिस वालो से पूछा क्यों ले जा
रहे है तो कु छ पुलिस वाले बोले की हम लोग S.O.G से है पूछताछ के लिए ले जा रहे है सौरभ भी
पुलिस वालो की गाड़ी के साथ-साथ अपनी मोटर साइकिल से गया।
दफा-7 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वाले को ले जाते समय अजय व कं शराज
यादव व मैं तथा गाँव व अगल-बगल के तमाम लोगो ने देखा।
दफा-8 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि कृ ष्णा यादव को थाना बक्शा पुलिस ले जाने के बाद मैं व
चन्द्रबदन यादव भी थाना बक्शा गये मैं व मेरे मित्र चन्द्रबदन ने देखा मेरे भाई कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वाले
लांकअप में बन्द किये थे मेरा भाई रो रहा था। मैं व चन्द्रबदन ने कृ ष्णा से मिलने का प्रयास किया तो
पुलिस वाले मुझे व चन्द्रबदन को गाली-गुफ्ता देते हुए थाने से भगा दिये।
दफा-9 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि थाने में पुलिस वालो द्वारा मेरे भाई कृ ष्णा को लॉकअप में बन्द
करने पर मुझे विश्वास हो गया कि मेरे भाई को पुलिस वाले किसी फर्जी मुकदमें में चालान कर देंगे।
दफा-10 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि अपने छोटे भाई कृ ष्णा को फर्जी मुकदमें में फं साने व प्राण
रक्षा के लिए श्रीमान पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर के मौ० नं०- 9454400280 पर अपने मोबाइल नं०-
9984669989 से दो बार फोन लगभग 5.35 बजे शाम दिनांक 11.02.2021 को फोन किया तथा
सही जबाव न मिलने पर श्रीमान पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर के मोबाइल वाट्सअप पर अपने भाई के
बारे में थाना बक्शा जबरदस्ती उठा ले जाने के बावत मैसेज भी किया था। जिसका रिकार्ड मेरे पास
है।
45
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
दफा-11 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि दिनांक 11.02.2021 को समय रात्रि 8 बजे मैं अजय यादव व
मेरी पत्नी सुनीता, मेरी माता सरस्वती देवी, भाभी गुड़िया, चचेरे भाई प्रमोद यादव ओसार में बैठकर
बातचीत कर रहे थे। और हमारे छोटे भाई प्रदीप यादव की पत्नी कोमल यादव की तबियत खराब
होने की वजह से वह घर के अन्दर सोई थी। हम सब परिवारजन कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वाले बिना वजह
के क्यों लेकर गये इसी विषय में बातचीत कर रहे थे। तभी थाना बक्शा S.O अजय कु मार सिंह व
10-12 पुलिस वाले कु छ वर्दी में कु छ सादे वर्दी में मेरे घर पर आये। और भद्दी भद्दी गाली देने लगे।
मेरे व परिवार के पूछने पर कि मेरा भाई कहा है तो पुलिस वाले ने बताया कि तुम्हारा भाई कृ ष्णा
थाने में है।
दफा-12 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मेरे व परिवार वालो के विरोध करने पर बन्दूक दिखाकर चुप
करा दिया। और दरवाजा पीटने लगे। अन्दर मेरे छोटे भाई प्रदीप यादव की पत्नी कोमल यादव
शोरगुल और दरवाजा जोर-जोर से पीटने की वजह से दरवाजा खोला। तो उसको भद्दी-भद्दी गाली
देते हुए हाथ पकड़कर धक्का देते हुए घर से बाहर निकाल दिया। घर में घुसकर बक्शे का ताला
तोड़कर बक्शे में रखा 60 हजार रूपया जो मैने अपने मौसा संतोष यादव पुत्र ज्वाला यादव से खेत
जो मेरा रेहन पर था छु ड़ाने के लिए लिया था।
दफा-13 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि घर के अन्दर रखा हुआ खाना-पीना फे क दिया और धमकाते
हुए व भद्दी-भद्दी गाली देते हुए बोले कि अगर तुम लोग हल्ला गुल्ला करोगे तो तुम सबको मारेंगे।
और कृ ष्णा को जान से मार देंगे। जाते समय घर पर खड़ी अपाचे जिसका नम्बर -UP 62/BF3621
भी उठा ले गये।
दफा-14 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि 11/12.02.2021 को रात्रि लगभग 12.30 बजे वही पुलिस
वाले जो रात्रि 8 बजे आये थे वही पुलिस वाले मेरे भाई कृ ष्णा यादव को घसीटते हुए घर पर लाये तो
मेरे भाई ठीक से खड़ा नहीं हो पा रहा था। बाहर पड़ी चारपाई पर उसे फे क दिये। मेरा भाई जोर -जोर
से कराह रहा था मां-मां मुझे बचा लो। उसके बाद पुलिस वाले मेरे भाई का बाल पकड़कर चारपाई
से जमीन पर पटक दिया। और पुलिस वाले बोले साले प्रधानी लड़ेगा तो तुझे उस लायक नही
छोडूगा।
दफा-15 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मेरे व परिवार के पूछने पर कि साहब मेरे भाई ने क्या गलती
की है जो आप इसे इतना मारे है और हम गरीब लोगो को क्यो सता रहे है। तो S.O अजय कु मार
सिंह ने गाली देते हुए कहा कि चुप रहो नहीं तो तुम्हारा भी यही हाल करेंगे। और पैसा लाओ तभी
तुम्हारे भाई को छोड़ेगे अगर पैसा नहीं दोगे तो तुम्हारे भाई की जान ले लेंगे। हत्या कर देंगे। मैं व मेरा
पूरा परिवार पुलिस वालो के सामने हाथ जोड़कर रोने लगे कि साहब मेरे भाई को छोड़ दो। लेकिन
भद्दी-भद्दी साली देते हुए मेरे भाई को घसीटते हुए लेकर चले गये।
दफा-18 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मुझे अफवाहन सुबह 12.02.2021 को 8 बजे पता चला कि
मेरे भाई को अजय कु मार सिंह व S.O.G टीम व पुलिस वाले द्वारा हत्या कर दी गयी।
दफा-19 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मैं उक्त सूचना पर क्षेत्राधिकारी सदर के यहाँ गया तो
क्षेत्राधिकारी सदर ने थाने पर फोन कर पता किया पता करने के बार मुझे सदर अस्पताल जौनपुर ले
गये जहां पर मेरे भाई का शव पड़ा था।
दफा-20 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि पुलिस वाले मेरे भाई का पोस्टमार्टम कराने व शव जलाने का
दबाव बनाने लगे। मैने कहा कि पहले मेरे भाई की हत्या का मुकदमा पुलिस वालो पर दर्ज किया
जाय तब पोस्टमार्टम हेतु लाश भेजी जाय।
46
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
दफा-21 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि उक्त घटना की सूचना मुख्यमंत्री उ० प्र० सरकार को
I.G.R.S के माध्यम तथा मानवाधिकार आयोग के फै क्स के माध्यम से सूचना दिया व अपने परिवार
वालो को सूचना दिया।
दफा 22 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि अगल-बगल गांव कु छ सम्भान्त व्यक्तियों द्वारा प्रदर्शन सदर
अस्पताल में किया गया काफी दबाव के बाद मेरे भाई के हत्या के बावत मुकदमा उपरोक्त दर्ज हुआ।
दफा-23 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि उक्त अजय कु मार सिंह थानाध्यक्ष बक्शा व S.O.G टीम व
पुलिस वालो के मारने से पुलिस कस्टडी में मेरा भाई मर गया तथा झूठी कहानी बनाकर मेरी भाई के
ऊपर झूठा मुकदमा लिखकर घटना कि लिपा पोती पुलिस द्वारा की जा रही है।
दफा-24 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि उक्त बातें मेरा 161 सी० आर० पी० सी० का बयान मानते
हुए सम्बन्धित विवेचक को प्रेषित करने की कृ पा करें।
अतः श्रीमान जी से अनुरोध है कि उक्त बयान हलफी को मेरा 161 सी०आर०पी० सी० के बयान के
रूप में दर्ज करने की कृ पा करें।
Statements of Kanashraj Yadav
समक्ष,
श्रीमान जिलाधिकारी / पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर
विषयः- मु० अ० सं०- 38/2021 अन्तर्गत धारा-302, 394, 504, 452 I.P.C थाना-बक्शा, जिला-
जौनपुर में 161 Cr.P.C के बयान के सम्बन्ध में-
हलफनामा मिनजानिब कं शराज यादव उ० त० 40 वर्ष पुत्र जलन्धर यादव ग्राम- चकमिर्जापुर, थाना-
बक्शा, जिला-जौनपुर हस्ब जैल हैः-
दफा-1 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि उपरोक्त नाम पते का स्थायी निवासी हूं मेरी दुकान मेन रोड पर
यादव जलपान, कृ ष्णा डेरी के नाम से है।
दफा-2 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मेरी दुकान इलाहाबाद रोड पर है। दिनांक 11.02.2021 समय
लगभग 3 बजे दिन मेरी दुकान के सामने S.O बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह व करीब 10-12 पुलिस वाले
दो गाड़ी से खड़े थे तभी सौरभ पाठक, कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी पुत्र तिलकधारी मोटर साइकिल से
लेकर पुलिस वाले के पास आया और पीछे से अजय यादव, कृ ष्णा का भाई व चन्द्रबदन यादव भी
आ गये।
दफा-3 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि अजय यादव पुलिस वालो से कृ ष्णा को ले जाने का कारण
पूछा तो पुलिस वाले बोले की S.O.G से ही पूछताछ के लिए ले जा रहे है। मेरे सामने ही S.O बक्शा
अजय कु मार सिंह व S.O.G टीम के पुलिस वालो द्वारा कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी को पकड़कर ले
गये।
दफा-4 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि 12.02.2021 को गाँव के अफवाहन पता चला कि कृ ष्णा
यादव की पुलिस कस्टडी में मौत हो गयी है लाश सदर अस्पताल में पड़ी है।
दफा-5 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि कृ ष्णा की मौत पुलिस वालो के मारने से आयी चोटो के कारण
हुई है।
दफा-6 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि हलफनामा मेरे निजी ज्ञान में सच व सही है न कोई बात झूठ है
न छिपायी गयी, ईश्वर मेरी मदद करें।
Statements of Chandrabadan Yadav
47
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
सेवा में,
श्रीमान जिलाधिकारी / पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर
विषयः मु० अ० सं०-38/2021 अन्तर्गत धारा-302, 394, 504, 452.I.P.C थाना-बक्शा, जिला-
जौनपुर में 161 Cr.P.C के बयान के सम्बन्ध में-
हलफनामा मिनजानिब चन्द्रबदन पुत्र बाबूराम यादव उम्र त० 25 वर्ष सा० मौ०-चकमोलनापुर, थाना-
बक्शा, जिला-जौनपुर हस्ब जैल है:-
दफा-1 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मैं उपरोक्त नाम व पते का मूल निवासी हूं तथा मेरे नाम व
बल्दियत का कोई अन्य व्यक्ति मेरे मौजे मे नही है।
दफा-2 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी मेरा मित्र का भाई था।
दफा-3 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी मेरे मित्र का छोटा भाई था जनपद के किसी
भी थाने में कोई मुकदमा नही था कृ ष्णा एक सीधा सादा व्यवहार कु शल लड़का था और वो प्रधान
पद के लिए तैयारी कर रहा था।
दफा-4 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि दिनांक 11/2/2021 को समय 2 बजे से अजय के साथ उनके
घर पर था दिनांक 11/2/2021 को समय करीब 3 बजे मोटरसाइकिल से सौरभ पाठक पुत्र जितेन्द्र
पाठक सा० मौ० सीहीपुर थाना लाइन बाजार जिला जौनपुर कृ ष्णा के घर पर आये तथा कृ ष्णा से
कहे रोड पर चलो बक्सा एस० ओ० अजय कु मार सिंह बुला रहे हैं कृ ष्णा सौरभ पाठक कि बाइक पे
चले गये।
दफा-5 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मैं व अजय, सौरभ पाठक के पिछे पिछे कं शराज यादव कि
दुकान के सामने मेन रोड पे गये तो मैने देखा सौरभ ने मोटरसाइकिल ले जाकर कं शराज यादव के
दुकान के सामने मेन रोड पे रोक दिया तो वहां पहले से खड़े एस० ओ० बक्सा अजय कु मार सिंह व
कु छ पुलिस वाले थे कृ ष्णा को दबरदस्ति अपनी गाड़ी लेकर जाने लगे मैं व अजय ने पुलिस वाले से
पुछा क्यु लेकर जा रहे है तो कु छ पुलिस वाले बोले कि हम एस० ओ० जी० से है पूछताछ के लिए ले
जा रहे है सौरभ पाठक भी पुलिस वालो कि गाड़ी के साथ साथ अपनी मोटरसाइकिल से गया।
दफा-6 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वाले को ले जाते समय अजय व कं शराज
यादव व मैं तथा गाँव व अगल बगल के तमाम लोगो ने देखा।
दफा-7 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि कृ ष्णा यादव को थाना बक्सा पुलिस ले जाने के बाद मैं व
अजय भी थाना बक्सा गये मैं व अजय ने देखा कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वाले लांकअप में बन्द किये थे
कृ ष्णा रो रहा था मैं व अजय ने कृ ष्णा से मिलने का प्रयास किया तो पुलिस वाले गालीगुप्ता देते हुए
थाने से भगा दिये।
दफा-8 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि पुलिस वालो द्वारा मेरे मित्र के भाई कृ ष्णा यादव को लांकअप
में बन्द करने पर मुझे विश्वास हो गया कि कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वाले किसी फर्जि मुकदमें में चलान कर
देंगे।
दफा-9 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि कृ ष्णा को फर्जि मुकदमें मे फं साने व प्राण रक्षा के लिए मेरे
मित्र अजय ने श्रीमान पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर के मो० नं० - 9454400280 पर अपने मोबाइल नं०
9984669989 से दो बार फोन लगभग 5.35 बजे साम दिनांक 11/2/2021 को फोन किया तथा सही
जबाव न मिलने पर श्रीमान पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर के मो० वाट्सप पर अपने भाई के बारे थाना
बक्सा जबरदस्ती उठा ले जाने के बावत मैसेज भी किया था जिसका रिकार्ड अजय के पास है।
48
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
दफा-10 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि सुबह पता चला पुलिस वाले एस० ओ० बक्सा अजय कु मार
सिंह व एस० ओ० जी० रात मे कृ ष्णा के घर आये घर में घुसकर 60 हजार रूपया व मोटरसाइकिल
नं० यू० पी० 62 बी० एफ० 3621 उठा ले गये मना करने पर परिवार वालो को भद्दी भद्दी गाली गुप्ता
दिये।
दफा-11 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि सुबह अफवाहन पता चला कि कृ ष्णा यादव कि पुलिस द्वारा
मारने पिटने के वजह से उसकी मृत्यु हो गयी।
दफा-12 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि जब मैं सदर जौनपुर पहुंचा तो कृ ष्णा यादव कि लाश मर्चरी
पर पड़ी थी उसके शरीर पर मारने पिटने कि वजह से गम्भीर चोट के काले निसान थे जो मैंने अपने
मोबाइल से विडीयो रिकार्ड किया जो मेरे पास है।
दफा-13 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि कृ ष्णा यादव कि मृत्यु पुलिस वाले के मारने पिटने से आई
गम्भीर चोटो के कारण थाने के अन्दर हि हो गयी थी।
दफा-14 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि पुलिस वाले अपने को बचाने के लिए कृ ष्णा यादव पर झुठा
मुकदमा लगा कर मामले कि लिपा पोती कर रहे हैं।
दफा-15 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि उक्त बाते मेरा 161 सी० आर० पी० सी० का बयान मानते
हुए सम्बन्धित विवेचक को प्रेषित करने कि कृ पा करें।
अतः श्रीमान जी से अनुरोध हैं कि उक्त बयान हलफी को मेरा 161 सी० आर० पी० सी० के
बयान के रूप में दर्ज करने कि कृ पा करें।
Statements of Saraswati Devi
सेवा में,
श्रीमान जिलाधिकारी / पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर
विषयः मु० अ० सं०-38/2021 अन्तर्गत धारा-302, 394, 504, 452, I.P.C थाना-बक्शा, जिला-
जौनपुर में 161 Cr.P.C के बयान के सम्बन्ध में-
हलफनामा मिनजानिब सरस्वती देवी पत्नी तिलकधारी उम्र त० 55 वर्ष सा० मौ०-चकमिर्जापुर,
थाना-बक्शा, जिला-जौनपुर हस्ब जैल है:-
दफा-1 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि मैं उपरोक्त नाम व पते की मूल निवासिनी हूं तथा मेरे नाम व
वल्दियत का कोई अन्य महिला मेरे मौजे मे नही है।
दफा-2 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी मेरा लड़का था।
दफा-3 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि दिनांक 11.02.2021 को समय लगभग 3.00 बजे करीबी
सौरभ पाठक नाम का लड़का मोटरसाईकिल से मेरे घर पर आया कृ ष्णा यादव से कहे चलो तुम्हें
एस० ओ० बक्शा बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह बुला रहे हैं। मेन रोड पर खड़े है। जब मेरा लड़का कृ ष्णा
सौरभ पाठक गाड़ी पे बैठकर चला गया तब मेरा बड़ा लड़का अजय व चन्द्रबदन भी कृ ष्णा के पीछ -
पीछे रोड पर गया था जहां से पुलिस वालें मेरे लड़के कृ ष्णा को अजय व चन्द्रबदन के सामने गाड़ी में
बैठाकर लेकर चले गयें।
दफा-4 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ मेरे लड़के कृ ष्णा को ले जाने के बाद दिनांक 11.02.2021 रात्रि
8.00 बजे मैं व मेरा परिवार ओसार में बैठकर बात चीत कर रहे थे हमारी छोटी बहु कोमल यादव की
तबियत खराब होने की वजह से घर के अन्दर सोई थी बिना वजह कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वालें क्यों लेकर
गये इसी विषय में बात चीत कर रहे थे। तभी थाना एस० ओ० अजय कु मार सिंह व 10-12 पुलिस
49
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
वालें कु छ वर्दी मे कु छ सादे वर्दी में मेरे घर पर आये और भद्दी- भद्दी गाली देने लगे मेरे व मेरे परिवार
के पुछने पर की मेरा बेटा कहा है तो पुलिस वालें ने गाली देते हुए बोला तुम्हारा लड़का थाने में है।
दफा-5 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि मेरे व परिवार वालों के विरोध करने पर बन्दूक दिखाकर
चुपकरा दिया और दरवाजा जोर जोर से पिटने लगें अन्दर मेरी छोटी बहु कोमल शोर -गुल और
दरवाजा जोर-जोर से पीटने की वजह से दरवाजा खोला तो उसको भद्दी -भद्दी गाली देते हुए हाथ
पकड़क धक्का देते हुए घर से बाहर निकाल दिया घर मे घुसकर बक्शे का ताला तोड़कर बक्शे मे
रखा हुआ 60 हजार रुपया निकाल लिये और घर के अन्दर रखा हुआ खाना पीना फे क दिया और
धमकाते हुए व भद्दी भद्दी गाली देते हुए बोले की अगर तुम लोग हल्ला गुल्ला करोगे तो तुम सब को
भी मारेंगे और तुम्हारे लड़के को जान से मार देगे। जाते समय घर पर रखी अपाची मोटरसाईकिल यू०
पी० 62 बी० एफ० 3621 उठा ले गये।
दफा-6 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि पुनः 11/12.02.2021 रात्रि 12.30 बजे मेरे घर पर वही पुलिस
वालें जो रात्रि 8.00 बजे आये थे वही पुलिस वाले मेरी लड़के कृ ष्णा यादव को घसीटते हुए घर पर
लायें तो मेरे लड़का ठीक से खड़ा नहीं हो पा रहा था। दो पुलिस वालें पकड़े हुए थे। बाहर पड़ी
चारपाई पर उसे फे क दिया। मेरा लड़का जोर-जोर से कराह रहा था मां, मां मुझे बचा लो। पुलिस
वाले मुझे बहुत मारे है और मेरी हत्या कर देंगे घर में जो कु छ पैसा हो लाकर इन्हें दे दो और मेरी जान
बचा लो। उसके बाद पुलिस वालें मेरे लड़के का बाल पकड़ कर चारपाई से जमीन पर पटक दिया।
दफा-7 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि पुलिस वाले से पुछी साहब मेरे लड़के की क्या गलती है जो
आप इसे इतना मारे है और हम गरीब लोगों को क्यों सता रहे हैं। फिर पुलिस वालें भद्दी-भद्दी गाली
देते हुए मेरे लड़के को घसीटते हुए लेकर चले गये। और पुलिस वाले ने बोला पैसा लाओं तभी तुम्हारे
लड़के को छोड़ेगे नहीं तो जान से मार देगें।
दफा-8 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि पुलिस वालें एस० ओ० बक्शा व एस० ओ० जी० टीम के लोगों
द्वारा मेरे बेटे की बुरी तरह से मारा पीटा गया है। जब मेरा बेटा मर गया तो उसकी लाश सदर
अस्पताल में ले जाकर रखकर भाग गये। यह बात दिनांक 12.02.2021 की सुबह गाँव में अफवाहन
पता चला तब मेरा बड़ा लड़का अजय सी० ओ० सदर के यहां गया वहां से जानकारी हुई कि कृ ष्णा
की लाश सदर अस्पताल में है। हम लोग सदर अस्पताल गये मेरे बेटे की मृत शरीर मरचरी पर पड़ा
था।
दफा-9 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि मेरे बेटे कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी की मृत्यु पुलिस वालों के द्वारा मारने
पीटने से हुई। अब पुलिस वालों द्वारा मेरे बेटे के ऊपर झूठा मुकदमा करके मनगढ़न्त कहानी बना रहे
है पुलिस वालों द्वारा लीपा-पोती की जा रही है।
दफा-10 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि हलफनामा मेरे निजी ज्ञान में सच व सही है न कोई बात झूठ
है न छिपायी गयी, ईश्वर मेरी मदद करें।
21. Call details filed alongwith the writ petition prima faice showing the complaint
made by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Janupur on 11.02.2021, as
referred in paragraph 19 of this order, is reproduced below :-
"Messages and calls are end-to-end encrypted. No one outside of this chat, not even
WhatsApp can read or listen to them. Tap to learn more
Sir mai Ajay Yadav pakadi chak mirjapur se mera chota bhai chunav ki talvari kar
raha hai prachar prasar kar raha tha chetra me baksha thana utha ke le gai hai muje
asanka hai kahi farji mukada na laga de sir hamari madad kare praadam sir
5:39 PM
50
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
Krishna Yadav putra Tilakdhari Yadav
5:39 PM
S
Call History
094544 00280
Mobile, 5:55 PM
Sp Junpur
(S. P Jaunpur)
+Add tag
094544 00280 CALL MESSAGE BLOCK
Mobile, Yesterday 5:34 PM In your contacts
094544 00280
Mobile, Yesterday 5:32 PM (355) 094544 00280
Mobile-BSNL
View call history
[email protected]
Uttar Pradesh East, India
Message +91 94544 00280"
22. As per the alleged Hospital slip being part of the case diary produced today in
court by the learned Government Advocate in presence of the respondent No.3, the
deceased was brought dead by the Police at District Hospital Jaunpur at about 3:35
A.M. On 12.02.2021, whereas, the Superintendent of Police Jaunpur and the District
Magistrate Jaunpur have stated in their letters all dated 12.02.2021 sent to the
National Human Rights Commission New Delhi and the District Judge Jaunpur that
KRISHNA Yadav had died during treatment at 03:35 P.M. at District Hospital,
Jaunpur. These facts have been mentioned by us only as instances.
23. Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that if this
court directs then investigation shall be carried by the respondent No.5.
24. Perusal of the counter affidavit and copy of the case diary as produced before us
by the learned G.A. Prima facie shows that entire effort of the police is to some how
give clean chit to the accuseds and for this purpose important evidences are being
left and some evidences are being created and manipulated. But presently we do not
want to comment any more since fair investigation is yet to be carried by an
independent and impartial Agency.
25 The facts mentioned above have been noted by us and brief discussion has been
made by us only for the purposes to see as to whether investigation by the police has
been carried honestly, fairly, diligently or attempt is being made to shield guilty
police officers/policemen and to manufacture/create false evidences. Ultimately,
51
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
whether the accused policemen have committed offence of murder and other
offences and whether the then Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur and Circle Officer,
Jaunpur were influencing the investigation and are creating false evidences, are
matters of investigation. There are sufficient material on record which prima facie
reveal commission of offence by the accuseds and involvement of higher officers in
consiperacy, destroying evidences and creating false evidences, are matters of
investigation. There are sufficient material on record which prima facie reveal
commission of offence by the accuseds and involvement of higher officers in
consiperacy, destroying evidences and creating false evidences to protect the
accuseds. Fair investigation is the foundation for a fair trial. In the present set of facts
fair investigation by State Police appears to be not possible in view of all the brief
facts and circumstances noted above.
26. This court in writ jurisdiction does not intend to enter into these areas, but with
the sole purpose as to whether fair investigation is being done or not, the facts in
brief have been noted by us. Therefore, the investigation by any agency in a fair
manner, shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by us.
27. Today, learned Government Advocate has stated before us that from the last three
days, efforts are being made for arrest of the accused, but they are absconding and
therefore, N.B.Ws. have been obtained for their arrest, but they could not be arrested
so far.
28. The facts as briefly noted above would further prima facie reveal that officers of
the I.P.S. rank also have some involvement in the murder/death of the deceased
Krishna Yadav, who died in police custody, allegedly due to brutal beating by the
accused policemen.
29. Post mortem report as well as alleged slip dated 12.02.2021 issued by the District
Hospital also prima facie appears to have been managed/fabricated. Serious
allegations have been made against the police personnel, which cannot be said to be
completely without evidence.
30. In the case of K.V. Rajendran vs. Superintendent of Police vs. CBCID, South
Zone, Chennai and others (2013) 12 SCC 480 (Paras-13, 14 and 17), Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that investigation can be transferred from the State
Investigating Agency to any other independent agency like CBI and the power of
transferring such investigation should be exercised in rare and exceptional cases
where the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to
instil confidence in the public mind or where investigation by the State Police lacks
credibility and it is necessary for having "a fair, honest and complete investigation"
and particularly when it is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial
work of the State Agencies. In the aforesaid case, Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to
its decision in Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Ors (2010) 2 SCC 200 and
observed that in order to do justice and instil confidence in the minds of the victims
as well of the public, the State Police Authorities could not be allowed to continue
with the investigation when allegations and offences were mostly against top
officials. It was further observed that where high officials of State authorities are
involved, or the accusation itself is against the top officials of the investigating
agency thereby allowing them to influence the investigation, and further that it is so
necessary to do justice and to instil confidence in the investigation or where the
investigation is prima facie found to be tainted/biased, the court could exercise its
Constitutional powers for transferring an investigation from the State investigating
52
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI only in rare and
exceptional cases.
31. In Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and others (2015) 9 SCC 795
(Para-15), Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the need of fair, proper and
impartial investigation, considered the transfer of investigation to CBI and held as
under:
"15. Suffice it to say that transfers have been ordered in varied situations but while
doing so the test applied by the Court has always been whether a direction for
transfer, was keeping in view the nature of allegations, necessary with a view to
making the process of discovery of truth credible. What is important is that this
Court has rarely, if ever, viewed at the threshold the prayer for transfer of
investigation to CBI with suspicion. There is no reluctance on the part of the Court to
grant relief to the victims or their families in cases, where intervention is called for,
nor is it necessary for the petitioner seeking a transfer to make out a cast-iron case of
abuse or neglect on the part of the State Police, before ordering a transfer. Transfer
can be ordered once the Court is satisfied on the available material that such a course
will promote the cause of justice, in a given case."
32. The criminal justice system mandates that any investigation into the crime should
be fair, in accordance with law and should not be tainted. It is equally important that
interested or influential persons are not able to misdirect or hijack the investigation,
so as to throttle a fair investigation resulting in the offenders escaping punitive
course of law. These are important facets of the rule of law. Breach of rule of law
amounts to negation of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article
21 of the Constitution of India makes it clear that the procedure in criminal trials
must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive, vide Menka
Gandhi vs. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 (para-7) and Vinubhai Haribhai
Malviya and others vs. State of Gujrat and another AIR 2019 SC 5233 (paras-16 and
17) and Subramanian Swamy vs. C.B.I. (2014) 8 SCC 682 (para-86). Article 21
enshrines and guarantees the precious right of life and personal liberty to a person
which can only be deprived on following the procedure established by law in a fair
trial which assures the safety of the accused. The assurance of a fair trial is the first
imperative of the dispensation of justice, vide Commissioner of Police, Delhi vs.
Registrar, Delhi High Court, New Delhi AIR 1997 SC 95 (para-16). The ultimate aim
of all investigation and inquiry whether by the police or by the Magistrate is to
ensure that those who have actually committed a crime, are correctly booked and
those who have not, are not arraigned to stand trial. This is the minimal and
fundamental requirement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Interpretation of
provisions of Cr.P.C. needs to be made so as to ensure that Article 21 is followed
both in letter and in sprit. "A speedy trial" is the essence of companion in concept in
"fair trial". Both being inalienable jurisprudentially, the guarantee under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India embraces both life and liberty of the accused as well as
interest of the victim, his near and dear ones as well as of the community at large
and, therefore, cannot be alienated from each other. A fair trial includes fair
investigation as reflected from Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If the
investigation is neither effective nor purposeful nor objective nor fair, the courts may
if considered necessary, may order fair investigation, further investigation or
reinvestigation as the case may be to discover the truth so as to prevent miscarriage
of justice. However, no hard and fast rules as such can be prescribed by way of
53
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
uniform and universal invocation and decision shall depend upon facts and
circumstances of each case.
33. Fair and proper investigation is the primary duty of the investigating officer. In
every civilized society, the police force is invested with powers of investigation of a
crime to secure punishment for the criminal and it is in the interest of the society that
the investigating agency must act honestly and fairly and not resort to fabricating
false evidence or creating false clues only with a view to secure conviction because
such acts shake the confidence of the common man not only in the investigating
agency but in the ultimate analysis in the system of dispensation of criminal justice.
Proper result must be obtained by recourse to proper means, otherwise it would be an
invitation to anarchy, vide Rampal Pithwa Rahidas vs. State of Maharastra 1994
Suppl, (2) SCC 73 (para-37). Investigation must be fair and effective and must
proceed in the right direction in consonance with the ingredients of the offence and
not in a haphazard manner moreso in serious case. Proper and fair investigation on
the part of the investigating officer is the backbone of rule of law vide Sasi Thomas
vs. State (2006) 12 SCC 421 (para-15 and 18).
34. Therefore, considering the fact and circumstances of the case in its entirety and
applying the principles of law aforenoted, we direct the respondent no.5 to
investigate forthwith in FIR No. 0038/2021, dated 12.02.2021 under Sections 302,
394, 452 & 504 I.P.C. P.S. - Baksa, District - Jaunpur, and accordingly investigation
is transferred/entrusted forthwith to the respondent No.5. The respondent nos. 1, 2, 3
& 4 shall ensure that the entire evidences and papers relating to the aforesaid case
crime/FIR are transferred to Investigating Officer of the respondent No.5 for
investigation. An affidavit of compliance shall be filed on behalf of the respondent
no.5 and also by the State-respondents on or before the next date fixed.
35. Put up as a fresh case on 20.09.2021 at 02:00 P.M. before this bench for further
hearing."
8. The CBI then took up the case and lodged a First Information Report on
17.09.2021 at 06:15 pm as RC0532021S0010, under Sections 302, 394, 452, 504
IPC, P.S. S.C.B. Lucknow, District Lucknow against S.O.G. Team, Ajai Kumar
Singh S.O. Baksa along with police personnels of Police Station Baksa, District
Jaunpur.
9. The CBI completed the investigation and has submitted a charge sheet under
Section 34 read with Sections 302, 330, 331, 218 read with Section 120-B IPC on
22.02.2022 in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI Lucknow against 19
police officials including the applicant. The pleading regarding the same has been
given in para 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the CBI.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is a police personnels
and since 2015 he is serving at Surveillance Cell, Jaunpur and has been awarded with
various commendation certificates for his distinguished services. Para 19 has been
placed before the Court to buttress the same.
11. It is argued that the applicant joined his services in the Police Department in the
year 1998 and was actively involved in the encounter of famous Kallu Najju Gang in
Shahjahanpur in which he received a bullet injury in his left eye and lost his vision in
November, 2002. He was admitted for treatment from 09.11.2000 to 02.12.2000 in
K.G.M.U., Lucknow. Para 18 and annexure 6 of the affidavit being some newspapers
cutting have been placed before the Court to buttress the said arguments. It is argued
54
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
while placing para 23 of the affidavit that the applicant has been made an accused in
the present case by the CBI intentionally as he was interrogated on 26.11.2021
before his arrest and was offered to become an "approver" in the case which was
declined by him after which he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
12. It is next argued while placing para 16 and 17 of the affidavit that the
involvement of the applicant in the present case has been shown on the basis of GD
No. 005 dated 12.02.2021 allegedly transcribed at 01:30 hrs at Police Station Baksa,
District Jaunpur pertaining to the arrest of the deceased in which the name of the
applicant finds place and he is shown to be a signatory of the arrest and recovery
memo of the deceased. The copy of the said GD has been placed before the Court
which is annexure S.A.2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 28.05.2022. While
placing para 17 of the affidavit in support of the bail application, it is argued that the
signature of the applicant in the said recovery memo is a forged signature and the
applicant has also given his sample to the CBI for forensic analysis which if done
would clear the doubts. It is further argued while placing para 24 of the affidavit that
the applicant has no previous criminal history and is not previous convict in any
case. The applicant is in jail since 27.11.2021.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the CBI has vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail. It is argued that the present case is a case of custodial death. There are eye
witness account of the police taking away the deceased from his house and
committing robbery. It is further argued that looking to the seriousness and the
gravity of the offence, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.09.2021
transferred the investigation to the CBI from the local police by a detailed order after
having being fully satisfied that the present case is a case of custodial death.
14. It is argued that the deceased was brutally beaten by police personnels while
being in police custody. An opinion was taken from the department of Forensic
Medicine AIIMS, New Delhi which was given vide letter dated 10.01.2022 of its
Professor and Head of the Department in which the Board opined as follows:
"The body of the deceased had multiple blunt force injuries as described above
(Image 1-3). In such type of injuries, capillaries and other blood vessels get ruptured
leading to internal bleeding in the underlying muscular layers and tissues causing
excessive and fatal internal blood loss from the circulatory system, which then leads
to circulatory collapse and shock.
The Medical Board is of the opinion that the cause of the death is ''Shock due to
cumulative effects of multiple blunt force injuries sustained to the body. All injuries
are antemortem in nature and fresh in duration. These injuries are only collectively
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature."
15. It is further argued that the opinion of the Forensic Department of AIIMS is
specific to the fact that the injuries received by the deceased, were collectively
sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. It is argued that the
applicant was one of the police personnels who had brought the deceased from his
house as is evident from the arrest and recovery memo and the GD entry of the
concerned Police Station. He is one of the signatories of the said memo.
16. It is argued that the Medical Board of AIIMS has opined that the nature of
injuries as received were caused by cylindrical objects like a rod, baton or lathi
which are the common articles of assault by the police. It is argued that as such the
present bail application of the applicant thus deserves to be rejected.
55
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
17. Custodial violence, custodial torture and custodial deaths have always been a
concern for civilized society. Times and again the judicial verdicts of the Apex Court
and other Courts have shown their concern and anguish in such matters.
18. In the celebrated case of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal : (1997) 1 SCC 416
the Apex Court while expressing its anguish in cases of custodial deaths has
observed as follows:-
"22. Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society
governed by the rule of law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the
Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot wish
away the problem. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs
during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries of the
Government become law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would
encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto
himself thereby leading to anarchanism. No civilised nation can permit that to
happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a
policeman arrests him? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his
arrest? These questions touch the spinal cord of human rights jurisprudence. The
answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic "No". The precious right guaranteed by Article
21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials, detenues
and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law
by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.
23. In Neelabati Bahera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 (to which Anand, J.
was a party) this Court pointed out that prisoners and detenues are not denuded of
their fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is only such restrictions as are
permitted by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental rights
of the arrestees and detenues. It was observed: (SCC p. 767, para 31)
"It is axiomatic that convicts, prisoners or undertrials are not denuded of their
fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is only such restrictions, as are permitted
by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental right by such
persons. It is an obligation of the State to ensure that there is no infringement of the
indefeasible rights of a citizen to life, except in accordance with law, while the
citizen is in its custody. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials or other prisoners in
custody, except according to procedure established by law. There is a great
responsibility on the police or prison authorities to ensure that the citizen in its
custody is not deprived of his right to life. His liberty is in the very nature of things
circumscribed by the very fact of his confinement and therefore his interest in the
limited liberty left to him is rather precious. The duty of care on the part of the State
is strict and admits of no exceptions. The wrongdoer is accountable and the State is
responsible if the person in custody of the police is deprived of his life except
according to the procedure established by law."
24. Instances have come to our notice where the police has arrested a person without
warrant in connection with the investigation of an offence, without recording the
arrest, and the arrested person has been subjected to torture to extract information
from him for the purpose of further investigation or for recovery of case property or
for extracting confession etc. The torture and injury caused on the body of the
arrestee has sometimes resulted into his death. Death in custody is not generally
56
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
shown in the records of the lock-up and every effort is made by the police to dispose
of the body or to make out a case that the arrested person died after he was released
from custody. Any complaint against such torture or death is generally not given any
attention by the police officers because of ties of brotherhood. No first information
report at the instance of the victim or his kith and kin is generally entertained and
even the higher police officers turn a blind eye to such complaints. Even where a
formal prosecution is launched by the victim or his kith and kin, no direct evidence is
available to substantiate the charge of torture or causing hurt resulting into death, as
the police lock-up where generally torture or injury is caused is away from the public
gaze and the witnesses are either police men or co-prisoners who are highly reluctant
to appear as prosecution witnesses due to fear of retaliation by the superior officers
of the police. It is often seen that when a complaint is made against torture, death or
injury, in police custody, it is difficult to secure evidence against the policemen
responsible for resorting to third degree methods since they are in charge of police
station records which they do not find difficult to manipulate. Consequently,
prosecution against the delinquent officers generally results in acquittal. State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamsunder Trivedi & Ors., (1995) 4 SCC 262 is an apt case
illustrative of the observations made by us above. ........."
19. Further in the case of Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan Vs. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble
and another: (2003) 7 SCC 749 the Apex Court has again shown its anguish in the
matters of custodial violence, torture and abuse of police powers. It has been
observed as follows:-
"If you once forfeit the confidence of our fellow citizens you can never regain their
respect and esteem. It is true that you can fool all the people some of the time, and
some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time", said
Abraham Lincoln. This Court in Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana (1980 (3) SCC
70), took note of these immortal observations (SCC p. 72, para 4) while deprecating
custodial torture by the police.
2. Custodial violence, torture and abuse of police power are not peculiar to this
country, but it is widespread. It has been the concern of international community
because the problem is universal and the challenge is almost global. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 which marked the emergence of a worldwide
trend of protection and guarantee of certain basic human rights stipulates in Article 5
that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
of punishment". Despite this pious declaration, the crime continues unabated, though
every civilized nation shows its concern and makes efforts for its eradication.
3. If it is assuming alarming proportions, now a days, all around it is merely on
account of the devilish devices adopted by those at the helm of affairs who proclaim
from roof tops to be the defenders of democracy and protectors of people's rights and
yet do not hesitate to condescend behind the screen to let loose their men in uniform
to settle personal scores, feigning ignorance of what happens and pretending to be
peace loving puritans and saviours of citizens' rights.
4. Article 21 which is one of the luminary provisions in the Constitution of India,
1950 (in short "the Constitution") and is a part of the scheme for fundamental rights
occupies a place of pride in the Constitution. The article mandates that no person
shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure
established by law. This sacred and cherished right i.e. personal liberty has an
important role to play in the life of every citizen. Life or personal liberty includes a
57
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
right to live with human dignity. There is an inbuilt guarantee against torture or
assault by the State or its functionaries. Chapter V of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") deals with the powers of arrest of persons and
the safeguards required to be followed by the police to protect the interest of the
arrested person. Articles 20 (3) and 22 of the Constitution further manifest the
constitutional protection extended to every citizen and the guarantees held out for
making life meaningful and not a mere animal existence. It is therefore difficult to
comprehend how torture and custodial violence can be permitted to defy the rights
flowing from the Constitution. The dehumanizing torture, assault and death in
custody which have assumed alarming proportions raise serious questions about the
credibility of rule of law and administration of criminal justice system. The
community rightly gets disturbed. The cry for justice becomes louder and warrants
immediate remedial measures. This Court has in a large number of cases expressed
concern at the atrocities perpetuated by the protectors of law. Justice Brandies'
observation which have become classic are in following immortal words:
Government as the omnipotent and omnipresent teacher teaches the whole people by
its example, if the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it
invites every man to become a law into himself. (In Olmstead v. United States, 277
US 438, US at p. 485, quoted in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, US at p. 659)
5. The diabolic recurrence of police torture resulting in a terrible scare in the minds
of common citizens that their lives and liberty are under a new and unwarranted peril
because guardians of law destroy the human rights by custodial violence and torture
and invariably resulting in death. The vulnerability of human rights assumes a
traumatic torture when functionaries of the State whose paramount duty is to protect
the citizens and not to commit gruesome offences against them, in reality perpetrate
them. The concern which was shown in Raghubir Singh case (1980 (3) SCC 70)
more than two decades back seems to have fallen to leaf ears and the situation does
not seem to be showing any noticeable change. The anguish expressed in Gauri
Shanker Sharma v. State of U. P. (AIR 1990 SC 709), Bhagwan Singh and Anr. v.
State of Punjab (1992 (3) SCC 249), Smt. Nilabati Behera @ Lalita Behera v. State
of Orissa and Ors. (AIR 1993 SC 1960), Pratul Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar and
Anr. (1994 Supp. (3) SCC 100), Kewal Pati (Smt.) v. State of U. P. and Ors. (1995
(3) SCC 600), Inder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1995 (3) SCC 702), State of
M. P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and Ors. (1995 (4) SCC 262) and by now celebrated
decision in D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997 (1) SCC 416) seems to have
caused not even any softening attitude to the inhuman approach in dealing with
persons in custody.
6. Rarely, in cases of police torture or custodial death, direct ocular evidence of the
complicity of the police personnel alone who can only explain the circumstances in
which a person in their custody had died. Bound as they are by the ties of
brotherhood, it is not unknown that the police personnel prefer to remain silent and
more often than not even pervert the truth to save their colleagues - and the present
case is an apt illustration - as to how one after the other police witnesses feigned
ignorance about the whole matter.
7. The exaggerated adherence to and insistence upon the establishment of proof
beyond every reasonable doubt by the prosecution, at times even when the
prosecuting agencies are themselves fixed in the dock, ignoring the ground realities,
the fact-situation and the peculiar circumstances of a given case, as in the present
case, often results in miscarriage of justice and makes the justice delivery system
58
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
suspect and vulnerable. In the ultimate analysis the society suffers and a criminal
gets encouraged. Tortures in police custody, which of late are on the increase, receive
encouragement by this type of an unrealistic approach at times of the courts as well
because it reinforces the belief in the mind of the police that no harm would come to
them if one prisoner dies in the lockup because there would hardly be any evidence
available to the prosecution to directly implicate them with the torture. The courts
must not lose sight of the fact that death in police custody is perhaps one of the worst
kind of crimes in a civilized society, governed by the rule of law and poses a serious
threat to an orderly civilized society. Torture in custody flouts the basic rights of the
citizens recognized by the Indian Constitution and is an affront to human dignity.
Police excesses and the maltreatment of detainees/under - trial prisoners or suspects
tarnishes the image of any civilised nation and encourages the men in "khaki" to
consider themselves to be above the law and sometimes even to become law unto
themselves. Unless stern measures are taken to check the malady of the very fence
eating the crops, the foundations of the criminal justice delivery system would be
shaken and the civilization itself would risk the consequence of heading, towards
total decay resulting in anarchy and authoritarianism reminiscent of barbarism. The
courts must, therefore, deal with such cases in a realistic manner and with the
sensitivity which they deserve, otherwise the common man may tend to gradually
lose faith in the efficacy of the system of judiciary itself, which if it happen will be a
sad day, for anyone to reckon with."
20. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records and
as per the judgments of the Apex Court as referred to above, it is evident that the
present case is a case of custodial death. The case of the prosecution is of the
deceased being taken away from his house to Police Station Baksa, District Jaunpur
which is not in dispute. An arrest memo was prepared regarding his arrest by the
officials of the police after which a GD was also drawn regarding the same. In the
arrest memo, the applicant is one of the persons arresting him and is also a signatory
to it. His name as such finds place in the corresponding GD No. 005 dated
12.02.2021. The injuries as received by the deceased cover basically the entire back
side of his body. The opinion of the Board of AIIMS, New Delhi is specific to the
fact that he died due to collective effect of the injuries received by him. The same
would go to show that the death was not natural. The present case is a case of
custodial torture and death with robbery in a well planned conspiracy. The applicant
is in the police force which is considered to be disciplined force and enshrined with
the pious duty of maintaining law and order and protecting the citizens. The present
case is not a case of police excess but a clear cut case of abuse of police powers and
police high handedness. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
21. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on
record, the order of the Division Bench of this Court and the dictum of the Apex
Court, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
22. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected."
28. The trial in the matter is going on in which 11 prosecution
witnesses have been examined. One co-accused Jitendra Singh was
granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.02.2023
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29494 of 2022. Against
the said order the informant preferred a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.
59
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
9816 of 2023 (Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh &
ORS.) before the Apex Court which stood allowed vide order dated
12.03.2024 and his bail was cancelled, the said order is already quoted in
the leading bail application of co-accused Jaysheel Tiwari.
29. Looking to the gravity & seriousness of the offence and also the
fact that his is second bail application without any new fact and also that
the report of the Central Forensic Laboratory regarding handwriting is
subject matter of trial, this Court does not find any good ground to allow
the second bail application, the same stands rejected.
30. Nevertheless, this Court is not oblivious of the applicant's right to
a speedy trial. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial, as per its
case routine and diary, and ensure that the no unnecessary adjournments
are granted to either of the parties so as to unnecessarily delay it.
(III) Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44460 of 2023
31. Heard Sri R.P. Rajan, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms.
Mohabbat Bi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vineet Vikram, learned
counsel for the first informant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the C.B.I. and perused the records.
32. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Angad Prasad Chaudhary,
seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime
No. RC05322021S0010, under Sections 302, 330, 331, 218, 120-B, 34
I.P.C., Police Station SCB/CBI, District Lucknow.
33. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is as under:-
(i) The first information report in the matter was lodged under Sections
302, 394, 452, 504 I.P.C. but charge-sheet has been submitted under
Sections 34 r/w 302, 330, 331, 218 r/w 120-B I.P.C. and thus the C.B.I.
has dropped Section 394 I.P.C. from the charges against the applicant
and hence the genesis of the prosecution was not found correct.
(ii) Charge-sheet dated 22.02.2022 has been submitted against the
applicant and other co-accused.
60
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
(iii) Charge in the matter has been framed on 18.09.2024 in which also
Section 394 I.P.C. is not amongst charged sections and thus again it is
shown that the genesis of the prosecution story was not found correct.
(iv) The applicant has no criminal history as stated in paragraph 30 of
the affidavit and is in jail since 23.12.2021.
(v) The statement of learned counsel for the C.B.I. would go to show that
11 prosecution witnesses till date have been examined and in all 93
witnesses have to be examined in the trial and thus the trial will take
time.
34. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. and learned counsel for the first
informant opposed the present bail application and submissions of
learned counsel for the applicant and submitted as under:-
(i) The applicant is named in the first information report and has actively
participated in the present matter.
(ii) The present case is a case of custodial death.
(iii) A co-accused Jitendra Singh was granted bail vide order dated
15.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29494 of
2022 (Jitendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another) which was
challenged before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.
9816 of 2023 (Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh &
ORS.) in which looking to the facts of the case which are that the case is
a case of custodial death where police officials are arrayed as accused
and as such the offences are grave and serious in nature and the bail
granted to the said accused was cancelled vide order dated 12.03.2024. It
was observed that the High Court ought not have taken a liberal view in
the matter.
(iv) There is an apprehension that the accused-applicant will tamper with
the prosecution evidence and intimidate the prosecution witnesses, if
released on bail.
(v) It is submitted that the applicant thus would tamper with the
prosecution evidence, threaten and intimidate the prosecution witnesses
61
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
not co-operating in the trial and there are good chances of his
abscondance, if granted bail. It is submitted that the applicant is a police
personnel and involved in a serious matter of custodial death and thus
the bail application be rejected.
35. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information
report. The applicant is a police personnel. The present case is a case of
custodial death. The trial in the matter is going in which 11 prosecution
witnesses have been examined. One co-accused Jitendra Singh was
granted bail by another Bench of this Court which was challenged before
the Apex Court and the Apex Court allowed the said petition and
cancelled the bail granted to him by an order dated 12.03.2024 in Special
Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9816 of 2023 (Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs. The
State of Uttar Pradesh & ORS.), the said order is already quoted in the
leading bail application of co-accused Jaysheel Tiwari.
36. The C.B.I. who was entrusted with the investigation submitted
charge-sheet against the applicant and other co-accused after finding the
following evidence against them, paragraph 16 (xxxi) of the charge-sheet
reads as under:-
"16 (xxxi). The aforesaid facts and circumstances establish that accused Ajay
Kumar Singh in criminal conspiracy with Raj Kumar Verma, Kamal Bihari
Bind, Jitendra Singh, Parva Kumar Singh, Ramkrit Yadav, Jaisheel Tiwari,
Angad Chaudhary, Shwet Prakash Singh, Rajan Singh and Durgeshwar Mishra
caused hurt to Dharmendra Yadav @ Buchu and Lalla Saroj with common
intention to extort confession. The above named accused persons further
caused grievous hurt to the deceased Krishna @ Pujari to extort confession
and subsequently committed murder of the deceased by inflicting such
grievous injuries, which were sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course
of nature. These accused Police offic"16 (xxxi). The aforesaid facts and
circumstances establish that accused Ajay Kumar Singh in criminal conspiracy
with Raj Kumar Verma, Kamal Bihari Bind, Jitendra Singh, Parva Kumar
Singh, Ramkrit Yadav, Jaisheel Tiwari, Angad Chaudhary, Shwet Prakash
Singh, Rajan Singh and Durgeshwar Mishra caused hurt to Dharmendra Yadav
@ Buchu and Lalla Saroj with common intention to extort confession. The
above named accused persons further caused grievous hurt to the deceased
Krishna @ Pujari to extort confession and subsequently committed murder of
tials have further created false record to justify their illegal acts and ostensibly
to show that the death of Krishna @ Pujari was a result of accident/beating by
unknown persons and not by physical torture during Police custody. Therefore
62
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
these accused persons have committed offences punishable U/s 34 r/w 302,
330, 331 and 218 r/w 120-B IPC and substantive offences thereof."
37. Custodial deaths have always been viewed as grave offences. Bail
of identically placed co-accused Ramkrit Yadav and Raj Kumar Verma
have been rejected by this Court vide orders dated 17.08.2022 and
06.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 10162 of
2022 (Ramkrit Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and 39462 of 2022
(Raj Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Another). No ground for bail is
made out.
38. The bail application is accordingly rejected.
39. Nevertheless, this Court is not oblivious of the applicant's right to
a speedy trial. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial, as per its
case routine and diary, and ensure that the no unnecessary adjournments
are granted to either of the parties so as to unnecessarily delay it.
(IV) Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34114 of 2023
40. Heard Sri Kamlakar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms.
Mohabbat Bi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vineet Vikram, learned
counsel for the first informant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the C.B.I. and perused the records.
41. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail
application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated
06.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39462 of
2022 (Raj Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Another).
42. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Raj Kumar Verma, seeking
enlargement on bail during trial in connection with R.C.
No.0532021S0010/SCB/LKO under Sections 34, 302, 330, 331, 218,
120-B I.P.C. registered at Police Station C.B.I./S.C.B. Lucknow, District
Lucknow.
43. Submissions of learned counsel for the applicant is as under:-
(i) In the charge-sheet the C.B.I. has in paragraph 16 (xiii) stated that
accused Ajay Kumar Singh along with his hamrah namely Kamal Bihari
63
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
Bind, Jitendra Singh and Raj Kumar Verma went to trace and recover the
said missing girl and thus the case of the applicant is at par with Kamal
Bihari Bind.
(ii) Co-accused Kamal Bihari Bind has been granted bail by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.05.2023 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23717 of 2023 (Kamal Bihari Bind
Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and thus the case of the applicant is at par
with that of co-accused who has been granted bail.
(iii) The applicant has no criminal history as stated in paragraph 37 of
the affidavit and is jail since 02.12.2021.
44. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. and learned counsel for the first
informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted as
under:-
(i) This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail
application of the applicant was rejected on merits by a detailed order
dated 06.09.2022 by this Court.
(ii) The case of the applicant is at par with Kamal Bihari Bind and
Jitendra Singh.
(iii) Jitendra Singh was granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide
order dated 15.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
29494 of 2022 (Jitendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another) against
which the informant preferred a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9816
of 2023 (Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & ORS.)
before the Apex Court which was allowed vide order dated 12.03.2024
and the bail granted to the said accused Jitendra Singh was cancelled
looking to the fact that the present case is a custodial death, the gravity
of offence and the involvement of the accused therein.
(iv) The accused Jitendra Singh then filed a bail application again before
this Court which has also been rejected vide order dated 31.07.2026
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47098 of 2024 (Jitendra
Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another) by another Bench of this Court.
64
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
(v) The applicant although claims parity with co-accused Kamal Bihari
Bind but cannot be benefitted by it since bail granted to an identically
placed co-accused Jitendra Singh by the High Court was cancelled by
the Apex Court and then again his bail being a second bail has been
rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
(vi) The trial in the present matter is going on in which 11 prosecution
witnesses have been examined.
(vii) There is no fresh & new ground in this bail application. The bail
application be dismissed.
45. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
records, it is evident that this is second bail application of the applicant.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide
order dated 06.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
39462 of 2022 (Raj Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Another), the
same reads as under:-
"1. Heard Sri Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the
C.B.I. and perused the material on record.
2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been
filed by the applicant- Raj Kumar Verma, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in
connection with Case No. 9073 of 2022, R.C. No.0532021S0010/SCB/LKO under
Sections 34 read with Section 302, 330, 331 & 218 read with Section 120-B I.P.C.
registered at P.S. C.B.I./S.C.B. Lucknow, District Lucknow.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant was appointed on the
post of Constable in the year 2018 after completing the training and then joined
District Jaunpur at Police Line on 27.01.2019 and thereafter was posted at Police
Station Baksha, District Jaunpur on 07.02.2020. Paragraph 5 of the affidavit has been
placed before the Court. It is argued while placing paragraph 12 of the affidavit that
the C.B.I. has collected the Document No. D11 which is the recovery memo which is
annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit in which although it is shown that although
there is signature of the applicant but the same is not of the applicant and is a forged
signature. Further by placing paragraph 13 of the affidavit, it is argued that CDR of
the applicant shows his last location at village Buda in the barrack of the Police Line
65
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
at 22:15:43 hours from where the applicant made a last call on the day of occurrence
i.e. 11.02.2021 to his wife and thereafter the applicant did not go either to the police
station or to anywhere. The copy of the CDR of the applicant is placed before the
Court which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit. It is argued while placing
paragraph 26 of the affidavit that the applicant has no criminal history. The applicant
is in jail since 02.12.2021.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the CBI opposed the prayer for bail and argued that
as per the GD entry and also the recovery memo of arrest which is annexed at page
64 (E) of the paper-book, the applicant was amongst the police personnels who had
arrested the deceased. It is argued that the bail of an identically placed co-accused
Ramkrit Yadav has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.08.2022 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10162 of 2022 (Ramkrit Yadav vs. State of U.P.
and another). It is argued that the present case is a case of custodial death and since
the bail of identically placed co-accused has been rejected by a detailed order, the
applicant does not deserve to be released on bail as he was one of the persons
instrumental in bringing the deceased from his house and in his arrest as shown in
the alleged recovery memo and then torturing him due to which he died.
5. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is
evident that this Court has rejected the bail of co-accused Ramkrit Yadav vide order
dated 17.08.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10162 of 2022. The
said order is extracted herein below:-
"1. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abdul Saleem
Ahamad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the CBI and perused the
material on record.
2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been
filed by the applicant Ramkrit Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in
connection with R.C. No. 10(S)/2021, under Sections 302, 394, 452, 504 IPC
registered at P.S. C.B.I./S.S.B. Lucknow, District Lucknow.
3. The First Information Report of the present case was lodged on 12.02.2021 as
Case Crime No. 0038 of 2021, under Sections 302, 394, 452, 504 IPC, P.S. Baksa,
District Jaunpur in connection with an incident which is said to have taken place
from 11.02.2021 to 12.02.2021 by Ajai Kumar Yadav against S.O.G. Team, Jaunpur,
Ajai Kumar Singh S.O., Baksa Jaunpur and the accompanying persons of the S.O. of
Police Station Baksa, District Jaunpur alleging therein that on 11.02.2021 at about
03:00 am, the S.O.G. Team, Ajai Kumar Singh S.O. Baksa along with his
accompanying police force came to the house of the first informant and took his
66
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
brother Krishna Kumar Yadav @ Pujari son of Tilakdhari aged about 24 years to the
Police Station in spite of the fact that there was no criminal case lodged against his
brother in any Police Station in the District. His brother was a friendly person. His
brother has been taken by the S.O.G. Team and S.O. Baksa Ajai Kumar Singh for
being falsely implicated in a case and was detained at the Police Station. Further, in
the night at about 08:00 pm, the S.O. Baksa with his accompanying police team and
other police personnels being about ten in number barged in his house and broke
upon the lock of the box and took away Rs. 60,000/- and the articles. On being
stopped, they abused the ladies. Again at about 12:30 am, the S.O.G. Incharge and
the S.O. Baksa along with 10-12 police personnels came on a Bolero vehicle and
motorcycles and brought his brother to the house. His brother was not in a position to
stand and was shouting loudly to his mother to save him and was stating that the
police personnels will kill him. They took away a motorcycle which was in the
house. The first informant went to the Police Station but the police personnels did
not let him meet his brother. In the morning, he received information that his brother
has died in police custody. He states that his brother has been murdered by the police
personnels and requests that S.O. Baksa be directed to lodge the First Information
Report against the then S.O. Baksa, S.O.G. Team and other accompanying police
personnels for murder and loot and appropriate action be taken. The said application
was addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur.
4. The postmortem examination of Krishna Kumar Yadav @ Pujari was
conducted on 12.02.2021 from 09:10 pm. The doctor found the following ante-
mortem injuries on his persons:-
"a) Contusion present on both buttocks of size 30x20 cm, which is Bluish
Brown in colour.
b) Contusion present in both scapular regions of size 15x8 cm which is
Bluish Brown.
c) Contusion present on left arm laterally of size 10x8 cm which is Bluish
Brown in colour."
The doctor after noting the ante-mortem injuries gave his opinion as follows:-
"Above injuries are not sufficient for death."
The cause of death was opined as due to shock and syncope as a result of
ante-mortem myocardial infarction.
5. During investigation, the police sought an expert opinion on the injuries and
actual cause of death of the deceased. The Joint Director Medico Legal, State
Medico Legal Cell, Lucknow vide his letter opined as follows:-
"The cause of death established is shock, that is not due to Myocardial
Infarction but it can be precipitated by vasovegal inhibition or ante-mortem
67
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
injuries present on the victim's body especially the big ones which is not
checked in PM examination."
6. A judicial inquiry was also ordered which was taken up by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jaunpur being Judicial Inquiry No.1 of 2021 which was inconclusive in
so far as the purpose of it was concerned. It was stated therein that after the detailed
inquiry, the conclusion which comes is that the injuries received on the body of the
deceased were as a result of beating and tortured by the police or were received on
11.02.2021 at about 02:00 pm in village Birhadpur due to an accident with a
motorcycle and then by assault of passer-by. The inquiry was thus concluded. The
said report is annexure 5 to the affidavit.
7. A writ petition being Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 2998 of 2021 (Ajay Kumar
Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another) was filed by the first informant before this
Court with regards to his grievances in which by a detailed order dated 08.09.2021 a
Division Bench of this Court directed the CBI to investigate the present matter and
ordered the transfer of the matter to the CBI forthwith. The said writ petition is still
pending disposal before this Court. The said order dated 08.09.2021 is quoted herein-
below:-
"1. Heard Sri Sarvesh Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Pal,
learned Government Advocate assisted by Sri Roopak Chaubey, learned AGA for the
State-respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 and Sri Gyan Prakash, assisted by Sri Sanjay
Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.
2. It is a case of custodial death of a young boy aged about 24 years, namely, Krishna
Yadav @ Pujari. As per FIR No.0038/21, dated 12.02.2021 under Sections 302, 394,
452 & 504 I.P.C. P.S. - Baksa, District - Jaunpur, the SOG team and SO Baksa, Ajay
Kumar Singh came to the house of the deceased on 11.02.2021 about 03:00 P.M. and
took away the deceased with an intent to implicate him falsely and the deceased was
detained at the police station. At about 08:00 P.M. the S.O. Baksa and other
policemen (ten in numbers) forcibly entered in the house of the informant and after
breaking lock of the box took away Rs.60,000/- and other articles and used filthy
language against women family members of the deceased. At about 12.30 P.M. the
incharge SOG and SO Baksa, Ajay Kumar Singh and 10 - 12 policemen brought the
deceased who was not even able to stand and was loudly crying " माँ-माँ मुझे बचा लो
पुलिस वाले मुझे जान से मार देगें।" Policemen also took away the motorcycle kept in the
house and when the informant went to the police station he was not allowed to meet
with his brother (deceased) and in the morning, information was received that his
brother Krishna Yadav @ Pujari died in police custody who has been murdered by
the policemen.
3. On the other hand, the police has developed a story that as per G.D. Entries
Nos.05 and 06, dated 12.02.2021, the deceased was apprehended while he was
driving a motorcycle who fell, received injuries and could not fled away and he told
that in the afternoon of 11.02.2021 he was hit by a motorcycle and the public beaten
him. The arrest of the deceased has been shown at 10:25 P.M. on 11.02.2021. As per
G.D. the deceased was brought to the police station Baksha at 01:30 A.M. on
68
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
12.02.2021 and at the same time he was sent for first aid alongwith Sub Inspector
Sunil Kumar Tiwari, constable Manish Kumar and constable Samir Kumar and the
Doctor at the CHC referred the deceased for treatment to District Hospital, Jaunpur
and by the time they reached at the District Hospital Jaunpur, Krishana Yadav @
Pujari died and thus he was brought to the District Hospital as dead. Copy of G.D.
No.05 dated 12.02.2021 has been filed by the respondent no.2 as Annexure C.A. -2
to the counter affidavit dated 01.09.2021 and the G.D. Entry No.06 of even date and
time i.e. 12.02.2021 time 01:30 A.M., has been produced today by the learned
A.G.A. before us stating that inadvertently these pages could not be annexed with the
counter affidavit. In G.D. No.05 dated 12.02.2021 time 01:30 A.M. it has been
mentioned
that:
"अभियुक्त द्वारा बारबार कराहने पर पूँछने पर बताया कि साहब आज करीब 2.00 बजे दोपहर में
ग्राम विरहदपुर के पास एक मोटर साइकिल से टक्कर लग गया था। राहगीर मुझे उसके साथ
मिलकर मुझे काफी मारे पीटे थे। जिसकी वजह से मेरे शरीर में जगह जगह चोटे आयी है। जिसके
कारण दर्द हो रहा है। गिरफ्तारी की सूचना उसकी माँ को मौके पर ही दी जा रही है। किन्तु गवाही
पर हस्ताक्षर करने से मना कर रही है। दौरान गिरफ्तारी व बरामदगी मानवाधिकार आयोग व
मानवीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के निर्देशों का पालन किया गया अभियुक्त का यह कृ त्य धारा
392/411/414 भादवि का अपराध है। अतः कारण गिरफ्तारी बताकर समय करीब 22.25 बजे
हिरासत पुलिस में लिया गया फर्द मौके पर टार्ची व बिजली की रोशनी में लिखकर पढ़कर सभी
सम्बन्धित के अलामात बनवाये जा रहे है। फर्द की प्रति अभियुक्त को दी जा रही है।"
4. The F.I.R. lodged by the brother of the deceased being the first information report
No.0038/21, dated 12.02.2021 (at 16:35 hours) under Sections 302, 394, 452 & 504
I.P.C. P.S. - Baksa, District - Jaunpur, (in which SOG Team Jaunpur, Station House
Officer Baksa, namely, Ajay Kumar and police personnel of police station Baksa are
named as accused), is reproduced below:
"सेवा में श्रीमान पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर महोदय सविनय निवेदन है कि प्रार्थी अजय कु मार यादव
S/O तिलकधारी यादव ग्राम पकड़ी चकमिर्जापुर थाना बक्शा जिला जौनपुर का निवासी हूँ घटना
दिनांक 11.02.2021 समय 3 बजे दिन में S.O.G. टीम व S.O. बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह मय
हमराही पूरी फोर्स के साथ मेरे घर पर आये और मेरे भाई कृ ष्ण कु मार यादव उर्फ पुजारी पुत्र
तिलकधारी उम्र 24 वर्ष पकड़कर थाने ले गये। जबकि मेरे भाई के विरुद्ध कोई आपराधिक मुकदमा
जनपद के किसी थाने में नही है। मेरा भाई व्यवहार कु शल व्यक्ति थाना मेरे भाई को S.O.G. टीम व
S.O बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह फर्जी मुकदमें में फँ साने के नियत से थाने में बैठाये थे रात्रि 08.00 बजे
S.O. बक्शा मय हमराहियों व पुलिस वालों 10 की संख्या थी आये और घर में घुसकर बक्से का
ताला तोड़कर 60,000 रुपया व सामान S.O. बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह व पुलिस वाले उठा ले गये।
मना करने पर कि महिलाओ को भद्दी -2 गालियाँ दिये पुनः 12.30 बजे रात्रि में S.O.G. प्रभारी व
S.O. बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह मय हमराहियों बोलेरो 10 मोटर साइकिल से 10 से 12 पुलिस वालो
के साथ मेरे भाई को मेरे घर लेकर आये मेरा भाई खड़ा नहीं हो रहा था जोर-जोर चिल्ला रहा था माँ-
माँ मुझे बचा लो पुलिस वाले पुलिस वाले मुझे जान से मार देंगे। और घर पर रखी मोटर साइकिल भी
उठा ले गये। मैं थाने पर गया मुझे पुलिस वाले मिलने नहीं दिये। सुबह सूचना मिली कि पुलिस
कस्टडी में मेरे भाई कि मौत हो गयी मेरे भाई की हत्या उपरोक्त पुलिस वालो द्वारा की गयी है। अतः
श्रीमान जी से अनुरोध है कि S.O. बक्शा को आदेशित करें कि तत्कालीन S.O. बक्शा व S.O.G.
टीम मय हमराहीयों के विरुद्ध हत्या व लूट का मुकदमा दर्ज करें आवश्यक कार्यवाही करें।
69
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
प्रार्थी अजय कु मार यादव S/O तिलकधारी यादव ग्राम पकड़ी चकमिर्जापुर थाना बक्शा जौनपुर MO
9984669989 हस्ताक्षर अजय यादव। नोट- उक्त तहरीर व कायमी हे० मो० सुरेन्द्र कु मार द्वारा बोल
-बोलकर अक्षरशः कम्प्यूटर में फीड करवाया गया।"
5. As per the alleged post mortem report, the injuries are as under:-
1. Contusion present in both buttocks of size 30X 20 cm which bluish brown in
colour.
2. Contusion present in lower scapular region of size 15 X 8 cm which is bluish
brown colour.
3. Contusion present Lt. Arm lateral of size 10X 3 cm which is bluish brown colour.
6. As per post mortem report, the cause of death of deceased was "shock and
Syncope as a result of ante mortem, myocardial and Infarction".
7. Due to custodial death, a judicial inquiry was entrusted in the matter to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, who recorded statements of 16 inquiry witnesses. The
first set of inquiry witnesses are the family members of the deceased, the second set
of inquiry witnesses are independent witnesses and the 3rd set of inquiry witnesses
are doctors and the policemen including the Sub-Inspector Sunil Kumar Tiwari
(IW-14), Constable Manish Kumar (IW-12) Constable Samir Kumar (IW-13). The
statement of inquiry witnesses IW-12 Constable Manish Kumar, IW 13 Constable
Samir Kumar and IW-14 Sub-Inspector Sunil Kumar Tiwari as recorded by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate and incorporated by him in his report dated 25.06.2021 filed as
Annexure CA -12 to the counter affidavit of the respondent no.2 dated 01.09.2021,
are reproduced below :
"साक्षी आई० डब्लू० 12 का० मनीष कु मार, थाना बक्शा ने ब्यान किया है कि-
"8. The IW 16 Kansraj Yadav (an independent witness) has stated before the Judicial
Magistrate on 11.02.2021 as under :
"साक्षी आई॰डब्लू० 16 कं सराज यादव ने बयान किया है कि-
"मैं चाय की दूकान लगाता हूँ। दिनांक 11.02.2021 में मै अपनी दूकान पर था। दूकान के सामने
एस०ओ० बक्शा की गाड़ी खड़ी थी। उस समय लगभग 03.30 बज रहे थे। वहां पर 10-12 पुलिस
वाले थे। वहाँ सौरभ पाठक कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी को बैठाकर लेकर आया और मेरू दूकान के
सामने आकर मोटरसाईकिल रोक दी। पीछे से चन्द्रबदन व अजय यादव मोटरसाईकिल से आये।
कृ ष्णा यादव को पुलिसवालों ने गाड़ी में डाल लिया। अजय व चन्द्रबदन ने पुलिसवालो से पूछताछ
की यह हमें नहीं मालूम है।
कृ ष्णा यादव से मेरी दूकान के सामने किसी ने मारपीट नही की थी। वे लोग उसे लेकर वहां से चले
गये थे। अगले दिन मुझे पता चला कि कृ ष्णा यादव की मृत्यु हो गयी है। मेरे सामने कृ ष्णा यादव से
किसी ने कोई मारपीट नही की थी। मुझे इसके अलावा और कोई जानकारी नही है।"
9. IW-2 (Smt. Satta mother of the deceased) and IW-3 (Ajay Kumar Yadav informant
and brother of the deceased) and IW-4 (Pradip Yadav, brother of the deceased) have
stated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate as under:
"साक्षी आई॰डब्लू० 2 श्रीमती सत्ता ने बयान किया है कि-
"मेरे तीन लड़के थे। बडे का नाम अजय यादव, दूसरे बेटे का नाम कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी तथा छोटे बेटे
का प्रदीप यादव है। सौरव पंडित मेरे घर आये थे। तारीख याद नही है। बोले कि बक्शा के दरोगा जी
70
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
कृ ष्णा यादव को बुलाये है। 03.00 बजे सांय कृ ष्णा यादव को सौरव पंडित अपनी गाडी पर बैठाकर
ले गये थे। अजय यादव व गांव के चन्द्रबदन को मैं थाने पर भेजी थी, कि क्या बात है जो कृ ष्णा
यादव को पुलिस बुलायी है। फिर रात में 08.00 बजे 10-12 पुलिस वाले जिसमें कु छ सादी वर्दी में थे,
मेरे घर आये और घर में तोड़-फोड करने लगे। पेटी का ताला तोडकर 60,000/- रूपये लूट लिये। मैनें
रोकना चाहा तो मुझे घसीटकर बाहर कर दिया। पुलिस वाले लूटामार करके 60,000/- रूपये लूट कर
चले गये। रात मैं 12.30 बजे पुलिस वाले मेरे लड़के कृ ष्णा यादव को जिसको बहुत मारपीट रखा था
को लेकर मेरे घर आये और कहा कि डेढ लाख रुपया दो नही तो तुम्हारे लड़के को जान से मार देंगे।
मैनें कहा कि मैं पैसा नही दे सकती। फिर पुलिस वाले मेरे लड़के को लेकर वापिस चले गये। अगले
दिन सुबह 05.00 बजे पता चला कि कृ ष्णा की मृत्यु हो गयी है। मेरे घर में मेरे सामने कृ ष्णा यादव
को पुलिस वालो ने नही मारा था परंतु वह बुरी चोटिल था।"
दिनांक 11.02.2021 को रात्रि गश्त में था। रात्रि 10.25 से रात्रि गश्त में ड्यूटी में था। मैं एस०आई०
सुनील कु मार तिवारी के साथ था व हमराही का० समीर कु मार के साथ रात्रि गश्त की ड्यूटी में था।
रात्रि 01.30 से पौने 2.00 के बीच थाने से फोन आया और हम लोगों को थाने पर बुलाया गया। थाने
पर जाकर पूछने पर हम लोगों को बताया कि किसी मुलजिम की तबीयत खराब हो गयी है , उसको
अस्पताल जाना है। मुलजिम का नाम एस०एच०ओ० साहब ने दरोगा जी को बताया था कि उसका
नाम कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी है और यह भी बताया था कि कि इसके पेट में दर्द हो रहा है। फिर रात्रि
दो बजे के लगभग मैं व एस०आई० सुनील कु मार तिवारी व का० समीर कु मार द्वारा मुलजिम को
प्राथमिक स्वास्थ्य के न्द्र नौपेड़वा ले जाया गया। मैं कृ ष्णा यादव के शरीर पर कोई चोट नहीं देखा।
कृ ष्णा यादव ने ऐसा कोई कथन नही किया था कि उसके साथ किसी पुलिसकर्मी ने मारपीट की है।
अस्पताल थाने से लगभग दो कि०मी० की दूरी पर है। अस्पताल से डाक्टर साहब ने कृ ष्णा यादव को
जिला अस्पताल रेफर कर दिया था। उसकी तबीयत उस समय काफी खराब थी परन्तु वह मार पीट
किये जाने की कोई बात या शिकायत नही कर रहा था। सामुदायिक चिकित्सालय से कृ ष्णा यादव
को जिला अस्पताल एं बुलेन्स द्वारा ले जाया गया था। मैं जिला अस्पताल नही गया था।"
साक्षी आई० डब्लू० 13 का० समीर कु मार, थाना बक्शा ने बयान किया है कि-
"दिनांक 11.02.2021 को रात्रि में मैं एस०आई० सुनील कु मार तिवारी व हमराही का० मनीष कु मार
के साथ रात्रि गश्त में था कि रात्रि 01.30 से पौने 2.00 के बीच थाने से फोन आया और हम लोगों को
थाने पर बुलाया गया। थाने पर जाकर पूछने पर हम लोगों को बताया कि किसी मुलजिम की तबीयत
खराब हो गयी है, उसको अस्पताल जाना है। मुलजिम का नाम एस०एच०ओ० साहब ने दरोगा जी
को बताया था कि उसका नाम कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी है और यह भी बताया था कि इसके पेट में दर्द हो
रहा है। फिर रात्रि दो बजे के लगभग मुलजिम को मेरे एस०आई० सुनील कु मार तिवारी व का० मनीष
कु मार द्वारा प्राथमिक स्वास्थ्य के न्द्र नौपेडवा ले जाया गया। मैनें कृ ष्णा यादव के शरीर पर कोई चोट
नहीं देखी। कृ ष्णा यादव ने ऐसा कोई कथन नही किया था कि उसके साथ किसी पुलिसकर्मी ने
मारपीट की है। अस्पताल थाने से मात्र दो कि०मी० की दूरी पर है। अस्पताल से डाक्टर साहब ने
कृ ष्णा यादव को जिला अस्पताल रेफर कर दिया था। उसकी तबीयत उस समय काफी खराब थी।
परंतु वह मारपीट किये जाने की कोई बात या शिकायत नही कर रहा था। सामुदायिक चिकित्सालय
से कृ ष्णा यादव को जिला अस्पताल एं बुलेन्स द्वारा ले जाया गया था। मैं जिला अस्पताल नही गया
था। वही से थाने वापस आ गया था।"
साक्षी आई० डब्लू० 14 उपनिरीक्षक सुनील कु मार तिवारी, थाना बदशा ने बयान किया है कि-
"दिनांक 11.02.2021 को थाना बक्शा पर रात्रि अधिकारी के रूप में मेरी ड्यूटी थी। मैं अपने
हमराहियों का० मनीष कु मार व का॰समीर कु मार के साथ लगभग 10.40 बजे थाने से रवाना होकर
रात्रि गश्त में भ्रमण पर था कि रात्रि 01.30 से पौने 2.00 के बीच थाने से फोन आया और हम लोगों
71
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
को थाने पर बुलाया गया। थाने पर जाकर पूछने पर हम लोगों को बताया कि किसी मुलजिम की
तबीयत खराब हो गयी है, उसको अस्पताल जाना है। थानाध्यक्ष महोदय से पूछने पर उन्होनें बताया
मुलजिम का नाम कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी है और यह भी बताया था कि इसके पेट में दर्द हो रहा है।
फिर तुरंत ही मैं उपनिरीक्षक अपने हमराहियों के साथ मुलजिम कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी को लेकर
प्राथमिक स्वास्थ के न्द्र नौपेडवा गये। जहाँ पर वह स्वंय ही गाड़ी से उतर कर अस्पताल के अंदर गया
था तथा डाक्टर साहब द्वारा उसको देखा गया व उसका इलाज किया गया। मैंनें मुलजिम कृ ष्णा
यादव उर्फ पुजारी के शरीर पर कोई चोट व खरोंच नही देखा था तथा उसने मुझसे व मेरे हमराहियों
से भी कोई मारपीट, चोट खरोंच का जिक्र नही किया था। डाक्टर साहब द्वारा जब उससे पूछा गया
तो उसने बताया था कि पेट में दर्द हो रहा है। यह बात मैनें अस्पताल में उसके मुँह से सुना था।
अस्पताल थाने से करीब दो किलोमीटर की दूरी पर है। डाक्टर साहब ने वहाँ पर मौजूद किसी अन्य
व्यक्ति से 108 नम्बर पर फोन करवाया था तथा बताया कि इसकी तबीयत खराब है, इसको जिला
चिकित्सालय रेफर किया जा रहा है। तुरंत ही फोन करने पर 108 एं बुलेंन्स सी०एच०सी० नौपेडवा पर
आयी व कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी को जिला चिकित्सालय जौनपुर लेकर गयी थी। लेकिन मैं
थानाध्यक्ष महोदय को सारी बात बताकर वापस रात्रि गश्त भ्रमण हेतु थाना क्षेत्र चला गया था।"
8. The IW 16 Kansraj Yadav (an independent witness) has stated before the Judicial
Magistrate on 11.02.2021 as under :
"साक्षी आई॰डब्लू० 16 कं सराज यादव ने बयान किया है कि-
"मैं चाय की दूकान लगाता हूँ। दिनांक 11.02.2021 में मै अपनी दूकान पर था। दूकान के सामने
एस०ओ० बक्शा की गाड़ी खड़ी थी। उस समय लगभग 03.30 बज रहे थे। वहां पर 10-12 पुलिस
वाले थे। वहाँ सौरभ पाठक कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी को बैठाकर लेकर आया और मेरू दूकान के
सामने आकर मोटरसाईकिल रोक दी। पीछे से चन्द्रबदन व अजय यादव मोटरसाईकिल से आये।
कृ ष्णा यादव को पुलिसवालों ने गाड़ी में डाल लिया। अजय व चन्द्रबदन ने पुलिसवालो से पूछताछ
की यह हमें नहीं मालूम है। कृ ष्णा यादव से मेरी दूकान के सामने किसी ने मारपीट नही की थी। वे
लोग उसे लेकर वहां से चले गये थे। अगले दिन मुझे पता चला कि कृ ष्णा यादव की मृत्यु हो गयी है।
मेरे सामने कृ ष्णा यादव से किसी ने कोई मारपीट नही की थी। मुझे इसके अलावा और कोई
जानकारी नही है।"
9. IW-2 (Smt. Satta mother of the deceased) and IW-3 (Ajay Kumar Yadav informant
and brother of the deceased) and IW-4 (Pradip Yadav, brother of the deceased) have
stated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate as under:
"साक्षी आई॰डब्लू० 2 श्रीमती सत्ता ने बयान किया है कि-
"मेरे तीन लड़के थे। बडे का नाम अजय यादव, दूसरे बेटे का नाम कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी तथा छोटे बेटे
का प्रदीप यादव है। सौरव पंडित मेरे घर आये थे। तारीख याद नही है। बोले कि बक्शा के दरोगा जी
कृ ष्णा यादव को बुलाये है। 03.00 बजे सांय कृ ष्णा यादव को सौरव पंडित अपनी गाडी पर बैठाकर
ले गये थे। अजय यादव व गांव के चन्द्रबदन को मैं थाने पर भेजी थी, कि क्या बात है जो कृ ष्णा
यादव को पुलिस बुलायी है। फिर रात में 08.00 बजे 10-12 पुलिस वाले जिसमें कु छ सादी वर्दी में थे,
मेरे घर आये और घर में तोड़-फोड करने लगे। पेटी का ताला तोडकर 60,000/- रूपये लूट लिये। मैनें
रोकना चाहा तो मुझे घसीटकर बाहर कर दिया। पुलिस वाले लूटामार करके 60,000/- रूपये लूट कर
चले गये। रात मैं 12.30 बजे पुलिस वाले मेरे लड़के कृ ष्णा यादव को जिसको बहुत मारपीट रखा था
को लेकर मेरे घर आये और कहा कि डेढ लाख रुपया दो नही तो तुम्हारे लड़के को जान से मार देंगे।
मैनें कहा कि मैं पैसा नही दे सकती। फिर पुलिस वाले मेरे लड़के को लेकर वापिस चले गये। अगले
72
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
दिन सुबह 05.00 बजे पता चला कि कृ ष्णा की मृत्यु हो गयी है। मेरे घर में मेरे सामने कृ ष्णा यादव
को पुलिस वालो ने नही मारा था परंतु वह बुरी चोटिल था।"
साक्षी आई० डब्लू० 3 अजय कु मार यादव ने बयान किया है कि-
"मैं ए०सी० मैके निक के हैल्पर के रूप में एक साल से काम कर रहा हूँ। उसके पहले पढता था। हम
तीन भाई थे। मृतक कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी मंझला भाई था। दिनांक 11.02.2021 को समय
03.00 बजे सौरभ पाठक पुत्र जितेन्द्र पाठक बाईक से आया जोकि कृ ष्णा यादव के पास आता
जाता था। मैनें उसको आते हुए देखा था। वो आकर बोला कि एस०ओ० साहब रोड पर खड़े है और
तुझको बुला रहे है। रोड घर से 150 मीटर दूरी पर है। कृ ष्णा उसकी बाईक पर बैठकर चला गया। मैं
और चन्द्रबदन उसके पीछे -पीछे बाईक से गये थे। रोड पर जाकर सौरभ बाईक रोक दिया। जहाँ पर
पुलिस वाले थे, जिसमें से कु छ वर्दीधारी नहीं थे। रोड से कृ ष्णा यादव को जबरदस्ती बैठाने लगे तो
मैनें विरोध किया। तो उन्होंनें कहा कि मैं एस॰ओ॰जी॰ से है पूछताछ के लिए ले जा रहे है। उस टीम
में एस०ओ० अजय कु मार भी थे। बाकि के लोग को मैं नहीं पहचानता। फिर पुलिस वाले कृ ष्णा
यादव उर्फ पुजारी को गाड़ी में बैठाकर ले गये। ये घटना कं सराज यादव जिसकी रोड पर चाय की
दुकान है ने भी देखी। मैं वापस घर चला आया। घर आकर घटना के बारे में लोगों को बताया। करीब
04.30 बजे मैं तथा चन्द्रबदन थाना बक्शा गये। जब हम थाने पर गये तो देखा कि कृ ष्णा जमीन पर
बैठा था। उसने हमको बताया कि पुलिस वाले उसको मारे-पीटे है। वह कह रहा था कि भाई हमको
बचा लो, पुलिस वाले बहुत मार रहे है। हमको पुलिस वालो ने उससे मिलने नही दिया और पुजारी को
उठाकर अंदर ले गये। हम लोगों को गाली देकर ताने के भगा दिया। वहां से मैनें बाहर निकलकर
एस०पी० साहब को फोन करके तथा व्हाटसएप करके बताया। परंतु एस०पी० साहब ने संतोषजनक
जवाब नही दिया। मेरी उनसे फोन पर बात हुई थी। फिर मैं घर चला गया। रात के 08.00 बजे के
करीब 10-12 पुलिसवाले जिसमें कु छ वर्दीधारी नहीं थे आये और घर में घुस गये तथा दरवाजा पीटने
लगे। मैं तथा मेरी माताजी ने कृ ष्णा यादव के बारे में पूछा तो उन लोगो ने कहा कि वो थाने पर है।
फिर पुलिसवालो ने मेरे छोटे भाई की पत्नी कोमल जो अंदर के कमरे में सोई थी उसको जबरदस्ती
दरवाजा खुलावकर हाथ से पकड़कर निकाल दिया। दो मोबाईल और मोटरसाईकिल जबरदस्ती ले
गये। रात में पुनः 12.30 बजे 10-12 पुलिसवाले मेरे भाई को लेकर आये जिसमें एस०ओ० अजय
कु मार सिंह भी थे। मेरा भाई रो पीट रहा था और चल नही पा रहा था। दो पुलिसवाले उसको पकड़
कर लाये और बाहर पड़ी चारपाई पर डाल दिया। मेरा भाई जोर जोर से कह रहा था कि जो भी पैसा
हो इनको लाकर दे दो और हमको बचा लोगही तो ये लोग मुझे मार डालेंगे। मेरी माताजी मेरे भाई को
पकड़कर रोने लगी, कहने लगी जो भी पैसा था वो तो आप लोग पहले ही लूट चुके हो फिर एस०ओ०
अजय कु मार ने कहा कि साला प्रधानी लडेगा, मैं इसको प्रधानी लड़ाता हूँ। फिर एस०ओ० अजय
कु मार सिंह ने कहा कि अगर अपने लड़के को सही सलामत देखना चाहते हो तो डेढ लाख रुपया
लेकर थाने आओ नही तो इसे गोली मार देंगे। हम रात में थाने पर नही गये। सुबह 06.00 06.30 बजे
हल्ला होने लगा कि कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी को पुलिस वालो ने जान से मरा दिया। इसके बाद
लगभग 08.00 बजे एस०पी० सिटी के आवास पर गया और उनको पूरी बात बतायी। एस०पी० सिटी
ने दिलाशा देकर कहा कि ऐसी कोई बात नही है तुम्हारा भाई जल्दी छू ट जायेगा। एस०पी० सिटी ने
एक दरोगा को बुलाया जिनका नाम राजेश यादव है जो शायद सरपतहां थाने से है बुलवाया। फिर
एस०पी० सिटी अंदर चले गये और एस०ओ० राजेश यादव हमको बाहर ले गये। मुझे बताया कि
तुम्हारे भाई की मृत्यु हो गयी है। वो बोले जो होना था वो हो गया, उनको ऐसा नहीं करना चाहिए था।
फिर वो मुझे गाड़ी में बैठाकर जबरदस्ती सदे अस्पताल ले गये। वहां पर 100-200 पुलिसवाले पहले
से मौजूद थे। और तमाम लोग भी थे। बड़ी कहने सुनने के बाद हमे तथा प्रमोद यादव को हमारे भाई
का मुंह दिखाये। मेरे भाई के हाथ काले हो रहे थे। पूरी पीठ काली हो गयी थी। रीढ की हड् डी के पास
खून निकल रहा था। फिर हम लोगो को बाहर निकाल दिये। पुलिस वाले रिपोर्ट लिखने को तैयार नहीं
73
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
थे, जब लोगों ने दबाव बनाया तो सांय के समय रिपोर्ट लिखी गयी। रिपोर्ट मैनें लिखायी थी। जो
दोपहर में 03.00 बजे पुलिसवाले रोड पर से पुजारी को उठा कर ले गये थे तो उस समय उसे कोई
नही मारा था। जब हम थाने पर गये पुलिसवाले जो 4-5 की संख्या में थे डण्डे व बेल्ट से मार रहे थे।
जब रात में पुलिसवाले घर लेकर आये थे तब किसी पुलिसवाले ने ने नही मारा था। मेरी माताजी को
प्लास्टिक का पाईप मारे थे। सब पुलिसवाले भद्दी-भद्दी गालियाँ दे रहे थे। मेरे भाई का कोई
आपराधिक इतिहास नही था। वह सीधा-सीधा व्यक्ति था। मेरे भाई को उठाने में सौरभ पाठक का
पूरा हाथ है परंतु पुलिसवाले उसके खिलाफ कोई कार्यवाही नही कर रहे है। मेरा भाई पूर्ण रूप से
स्वस्थ था, उसे कोई बिमारी नही थी। उसकी मृत्यु पुलिसवालों के मारने के कारण से हुई है।"
साक्षी आई॰डब्लू० 4 प्रदीप यादव ने बयान किया है कि-
"हम लोग तीन भाई थे। जिसमें मैं सबसे छोटा हूँ। अजय यादव सबसे बडा, कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी
बीच वाला भाई था। मै मुम्बई में रहकर ए०सी० मैके निक का काम करता हूँ। मेरे पिताजी भी मुम्बई में
रहकर गाड़ी चलाते है। दिनांक 11.02.2021 को मेरी पत्नी कोमल यादव ने फोन करके बताया कि
मेरे भाई कृ ष्णा को पुलिस उठा ले गयी है। मेरे पूछने पर उसने बताया कि थाना बक्शा की पुलिस
जिस में एस०ओ० अजय सिंह व एस०ओ०जी० की टीम रोड पर से उठा कर ले गयी है। उसने बताया
कि सौरभ पाठक उसको बुलाकर ले गया था। पुलिसवाले कह रहे थे कि पूछताछ करके छोड़ देंगे
और हम लोग निश्चिंत हो गये। फिर मेरी पत्नी ने फोन करके बताया कि पुलिसवाले घर पर आकर
पैसा और घर का सामान लूट ले गधे है, तब हम घबरा गये और अन्य लोगो से बातचीत किया। परंतु
उन लोगों द्वारा कोई संतोषजनक जवाब नही दिया गया। रात 12.30 के बाद मेरी पत्नी द्वारा पुनः
फोन करके रोते हुए बताया गया कि पुलिसवाले भईया को लेकर आये थे। कु ल 10-12 की संख्या में
थे। कु छ वर्दी नही पहने थे। उसने बताया कि पुलिसवाले ज्यादामार दिये है , जिससे वह चल नही पा
रहा है। भईया रो रहे थे कि जो भी पैसा है देकर मेरी जान बचा लो नही तो ये लोग मुझे जान से मार
देगें। एस०ओ० अजय सिंह ने भद्दी-भद्दी गालियां दी और कहा कि अगर पैसा नही दोगे तो सुबह तेरे
बेटे की लाश मिलेगी। यह बात मेरी पत्नी द्वारा मुझे फोन करके बतायी गयी थी। सुबह 06.00 बजे
को 12 तारीख को मेरी पत्नी का फोन आया कि पुलिसवालो ने कृ ष्णा यादव को मार डाला है और
सदर अस्पताल में छोड़कर चले गये है। हम लोग उन्हें देखने जा रहे है। फिर मैं, मेरे पिताजी, मेरे बडे
पापा का लड़का विनोद यादव फलाईट द्वारा जौनपुर आये। जौनपुर सदर 07.00 बजे के बीच में
पहुँचे। मैनें अस्पताल सांयकाल 06.30 और मेरे पूरे परिवार ने भाई के शव को देखा था। इसकी कमर
पर व आँख, नाक व कान से खून आ रहा था। फिर हम लोगों को अस्पताल से हटा दिया गया।"
साक्षी आई॰डब्लू० 5 डा० मनीष कु मार के सरवानी सी०एच०सी० सुजानगंज (पोस्टमार्टम कर्ता) ने
ब्यान किया है कि-
मुख्या चिकित्साधिकारी, जौनपुर के आदेश के अनुसार मेरी ड्यूटी दिनांक 12.02.2021 को
पोस्टमार्टम हाऊस, जौनपुर लगायी गयी थी। मेरे अलावा मेरे पैनल में डा० शाहिद अख्तर,
सी०एच०सी० मडियाहूँ व डा०प्रवीण कु मार, सी०एच०सी० रेहटी एं व फार्मासिस्ट अवधेश कु मार,
पुलिस लाईन अस्पताल मौजूद थे। दिनांक 12.02.2021 को ए०डी०एम० के आदेशानुसार रात्रि
09.10 पी०एम० पर कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी का शव विच्छेद शुरू किया गया। शव विच्छेद की
कार्यावाही की विडियोग्राफी शुभम मौर्या द्वारा की गयी। शव को का० अरविन्द कु मार व का० मनीष
कु मार थाना बक्शा द्वारा पोस्टमार्टम हाऊस लाया गया था। पोस्टमार्टम रिपोर्ट पर मेरे पैनल द्वारा
निम्न चोटे पायी गयी-
(1) Contusion of size 30 x 20 cm दोनों नितम्बों पर जोकि लाल भूरा रंग लिये हुए था।
74
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
(2) Contusion of size 15 x 08 cm लगभग उपरी पीठ पर दोनो तरफ कं धो के पास
जोकि लाल भूरा रंग लिये हुए था।
(3) Contusion of size 10 x 08 cm लगभग बाये भुजा पर बाहर तरफ था जोकि नीला
रंग लिए हुए था।
उक्त तीनों चोटों के अलावा अन्य कोई जाहिरा चोट नही थी। कोई हड्डी भी टूटी नही थी। किसी
धारदार हथियार की भी कोई चोट नही थी।
उक्त चोटे ऐसी प्रकृ ती की नही थी, जिसमें कि किसी की मृत्यु प्रायः सम्भाव्य हो।
जब शव का विच्छेद किया गया तो प्रथमतः छाती खोलने पर यह पाया गया कि दोनो फे फड़ो में खून
भरा हुआ था। पसली में कोई दिक्तत नही थी। सांस नली सामान्य थी। गर्दन में कोई दिक्कत नही
थी। हृदय के दो चैम्बरों में खून भरा था। हृदय के दाहिने चैम्बर Ventricle' की पिछली दिवार पर 2 x
1 cm का सफे द धब्बा था। जो कि चिन्हित करता है कि उक्त धब्बा MI (दिल का दौरा) 'हृदयाघात'
होने की वजह से सम्भाव्य है।"
10. As per story developed by the police, the deceased was brought to the police
station at about 01:30 A.M. on 12.02.2021 after his arrest at about 10:25 P.M. on
11.02.2021 and he was sent to CHC Naupedwa, Jaunpur, at about 02:00 AM on
12.02.2021 for first aid, where Doctor referred him for District Hospital and when
the deceased was brought to District Hospital by ambulance he was found dead.
11. Learned A.G.A. has produced before us case diary to impress that as per an
alleged slip issued by the Doctor on emergency duty in Amar Sahid Uma Nath Singh
District Hospital Jaunpur dated 12.2.2021, the deceased Krishna Yadav was brought
dead at the Hospital at about 03:35 A.M. by the Constable Manish Kumar and
Constable Samir Kumar, P.S. Baksa.
12. A supplementary affidavit dated 09.08.2021 has been filed by the petitioner
annexing therewith three photographs of the dead body of the deceased Krishna
Yadav. Averments in this regard have been made by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of
the supplementary affidavit dated 09.08.2021 which have not been denied or
disputed by the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.3 in separate counter
affidavits filed by them. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent
no.2 by Chaub Singh, Circle Officer Badlapur, District - Jaunpur who replied the
contents of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the aforesaid supplementary affidavit, in paragraph
33 of his counter affidavit as under :
"That the contents of paragraph nos. 2 & 3 of the supplementary affidavit refer to
post mortem report dated 12.02.2021 and colour photographs of the deceased
Krishna Yadav @ Pujari and as per the post mortem report there were three injuries
on the person of the deceased and as per opinion of the doctor the said injuries are
not sufficient for death and the cause of death of deceased is Shock & Syncope as a
result of ante-mortem myocardial infraction and the viscera was preserved for any
intoxication. As per the viscera report dated 01.07.2021 issued by the Forensic
Science Laboratory, Ram Nagar , Varanasi no Chemical poison was found in
viscera."
13. In his counter affidavit dated 06.09.2021, Sri Ajay Kumar Sahani, Superintendent
of Police, Jaunpur, has replied paragraph 3 of the aforesaid supplementary affidavit,
as under :
75
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
"That in reply to the contents of paragraph no.3 of the supplementary affidavit, it is
submitted that the post-mortem report shows that there were 3 injuries on the person
of deceased and as per the penal of doctors these injuries were not sufficient for
death. The cause of death was due to shock and syncope as a result of ante-mortem
myocardial infarction."
14. On 03.09.2021 this writ petition was heard at length and a detailed order dated
03.09.2021 was passed, observing as under :-
Despite all these facts well on record and for the reasons best known to the
respondents, they have not taken any action against the accuseds pursuant to the
impugned FIR but as a matter of eye wash transfer or suspension or attachment order
of accuseds were passed. The custodial death of deceased is undisputed. Serious
allegations supported by the inquiry witnesses are well on record and and yet for the
reasons best known to the respondents, no action has been taken against the accused,
instead, it prima facie appears that effort is being made to linger the investigation and
carry it in a direction so the accused policemen may escape.
15. When this matter was heard on 06.09.2021 in presence of the Superintendent of
Police Jaunpur, this court noted in the order the admission and submissions made by
the State-respondents, as under :
"Heard Sri Sarvesh Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Pal,
learned Government Advocate assisted by Sri Roopak Chaubey, learned AGA for the
State-respondents.
On oral request, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Central
Bureau of Investigation through its Director as respondent no. 5 in the array of
parties. He undertakes to serve a copy of the writ petition along with supplementary
affidavit and a copy of this order upon the counsel appearing on behalf of C.B.I.,
during course of the day.
Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 3 dated 6.9.2021 has been filed today,
which is taken on record. Sri Ajay Kumar Sahni, Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur is
present in the Court in compliance of the order dated 3.9.2021.
Learned Government Advocate admits that the photographs of the deceased filed
along with the supplementary affidavit dated 9.8.2021 is undisputed. The contents of
paragraph no. 3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 9.8.2021 regarding the aforesaid
photographs, have neither been disputed nor denied by the respondent no. 3 in
paragraph no. 43 of the counter affidavit dated 6.9.2021. He states that accused
police men are absconding and efforts are being made for their arrest. He submits
that the present Superintendent of Police namely Sri Ajay Kumar Sahni has taken the
charge on 17.6.2021 and thus he was not the Superintendent of Police at the time of
registration of first information report no. 0038 of 2021 dated 12.2.2021 under
Section 302, 394, 452, 504 IPC in which the SOG team Jaunpur, S.O. Baksa, Ajay
Kumar Singh and S.O. Hamrah, Thana Baksa Jaunpur were the accused. He states
that one Sri Rajkaran Naiyar was the then Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a day's time to file
rejoinder affidavit.
Put up as fresh on 8.9.2021 at 10:00 A.M. for further hearing before this Bench."
16. The facts as briefly noted above prima facie reveal that the deceased was lifted
by the S.H.O. Police Station Baksa and other policemen on 11.02.2021 and,
thereafter he remained in the custody. The story of accident of the deceased in the
76
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
afternoon of 11.02.2021 is a story prima facie developed by the police so as to give a
different colour for the death of the deceased. As per own case of the police and G.D.
entry, the deceased was arrested at about 10:25 A.M. on 11.02.2021 but he was
brought to the police station at about 01:30 A.M. on 12.02.2021 and no treatment
was required. Surprisingly, telephone calls were made to Sub-inspector Sunil Kumar
Tiwari, Constable Manish Kumar and Constable Sameer Kumar between 01:30 A.M.
to 01:45 A.M. requiring them to come to the police station to carry the deceased for
first aid/ treatment. As per statement given by these three police personnel before the
C.J.M., Jaunpur, they took the deceased at about 02:00 A.M. on 12.02.2021 to bring
him to C.H.C. Naupedwa, Jaunpur.
17. As per police story, the aforesaid S.I. Sunil Kumar Tiwari, Constables Manish
Kumar and Sameer Kumar also brought the deceased to District Hospital, Jaunpur.
But perusal of their statement before the C.J.M. reveals that they had neither carried
nor brought the deceased to the District Hospital rather they returned from C.H.C.
Nawpedwa. As per photo-stat copy of the entry in the register at C.H.C. Nawpedwa,
Jaunpur at serial No.E-3092, Krishna Yadav, when brought to the C.H.C., Naupedwa,
Jaunpur, was unconscious and his B.P. and P.P. were not found and after thorough
examination, the doctor referred him to District Hospital, Jaunpur at 01:55 A.M. The
aforesaid photo stat copy of the register of C.H.C. Naupedwa, Jaunpur, has been
produced before us by the learned A.G.A. stating it to be part of the case diary. Thus,
when as per own case of the respondents, they took the deceased Krishna Yadav at
about 02.00 A.M. on 12.02.2021 from the police station Baksa, then how it is
possible that the doctor after thorough examination, has referred the deceased for
District Hospital at 01:55 A.M. That apart, the doctor at the C.H.C. has found the
deceased in an unconscious condition and his B.P. and P.P. were not found whereas
the G.D. entry shows that the deceased was merely making some complain of pain in
stomach. Surprisingly, the aforesaid three policemen who brought Krishna Yadav to
C.H.C. Naupedwa, have stated that they have not seen any scratch or injury on the
body of Krishna Yadav who has also not told about injuries and who told the doctor
about pain in stomach, WHEREAS as per entries made by the doctor in the register
at the C.H.C. Naupedwa, the Krishna Yadav was unconscious and his B.P. and P.P.
were not found. Thus, the police story and G.D. entries are prima facie false and a
criminal act to divert investigation in a wrong direction by manipulating evidences
so as to defeat the rule of law and fair investigation. The respondents have set up a
case that the deceased was carried by the aforesaid Sub Inspector Sunil Kumar
Tiwari, Constable Manish Kumar and Constable Sameer Kumar from the police
station to C.H.C. Naupedwa, Jaunpur and thereafter from the C.H.C., Naupedwa to
the District Hospital Jaunpur, but these three persons have stated in their statement
before the C.J.M., Jaunpur that they carried the deceased only upto C.H.C.
Naupedwa Jaunpur and thereafter, they came back. Thus, the story developed by the
respondents that the deceased was brought to District Hospital, Jaunpur by the
aforesaid Sub Inspector and Constable, is itself not supported by their statements.
18. It is admitted case of the respondents that the deceased had received various
injuries, which is reflected from the G.D. Entry No. 05. The statement made by the
mother and brother of the deceased before the C.J.M., Jaunpur regarding brutal
beating by the police and consequent injuries to the deceased, prima facie
corroborates with the photographs of the deceased and a little reference in the G.D.
entry No. 5. Surprisingly, the post mortem report does not contain the injuries
present on vital part of the body of the deceased which can be easily seen in the
undisputed photographs filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit. Thus, prima
77
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
facie, post mortem report also appears to be manipulated or procured under undue
influence.
19. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that the incident of
lifting the deceased by the Police on 11.02.2021 was informed to the Superintendent
of Police Jaunpur over telephone (mobile phone) and by sending messages but no
action was taken. Copy of call details and messages have been filed as Annexure
No.3 which have not been disputed by the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 both in their
counter affidavits. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated about
some independent eye witnesses and some family members who submitted their
notarized statement before the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police,
Jaunpur. Copies of statements of Ajay, Kanshraj, Chandrabhan and Saraswati Devi
have been filed collectively as Annexure No.2. But in their counter affidavits the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vaguely denied it without denying the fact of statements and
its contents. From the records of the writ petition and the report of the C.J.M.,
Jaunpur dated 25.6.2021 it appears that the deceased was preparing for election of
Village Panchayat and he was threatened by the SHO Baksha.
20. The statements given by witness and filed alongwith the writ petition as referred
in paras above, are reproduced below :-
Statement of Ajay Kumar Yadav
सेवा में,
श्रीमान जिलाधिकारी/ पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर विषयः मु० अ० सं०- 38/2021 अन्तर्गत
धारा-30, 394, 504 आई० पी० सी० थाना-बक्शा, जिला-जौनपुर में 161 Cr.P.C के बयान के
सम्बन्ध में-
हलफनामा मिनजानिब अजय पुत्र तिलकधारी उम्र त० 30 वर्ष सा० मौ०- चकमिर्जापुर, थाना-बक्शा,
जिला-जौनपुर हस्व जैल हैः-
दफा-1 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मैं उपरोक्त नाम व पते का मूल निवासी हूँ तथा मेरे नाम व
बल्दियत का कोई अन्य व्यक्ति मेरे मौजे मे नही है।
दफा-2 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मुकदमा उपरोक्त में वादी हूं।
दफा-3 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी पुत्र तिलकधारी उ० त० 24 वर्ष सा० मौ
चकमिर्जापुर, थाना-बक्शा, जिला-जौनपुर मेरा छोटा भाई था।
दफा-4 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मेरा छोटा भाई कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी के ऊपर जनपद जौनपुर के
किसी भी थाने में कोई मुकदमा नही था कृ ष्णा एक सीधा-साधा व्यवहार कु शल लड़का था। और वह
प्रधान पद के लिये तैयारी कर रहा था।
दफा-5 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि दिनांक 11.02.2021 को समय करीब 3 बजे दिन की है। मैं व
मेरा छोटा भाई कृ ष्णा और मेरे मित्र चन्द्रबदन यादव घर पर बैठकर बातचीत कर रहे थे कि मोटर
साइकिल से सौरभ पाठक पुत्र जितेन्द्र पाठक सा० मौ०-सिहीपुर, थाना लाइन बाजार, जिला-जौनपुर
कृ ष्णा के घर पर आये तथा कृ ष्णा से कहे की रोड पर चलो बक्शा S.O अजय कु मार सिंह बुला रहे
है। तब कृ ष्णा सौरभ पाठक की मोटर साइकिल पर बैठकर उसके साथ चला गया।
दफा-6 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मैं अजय व मेरे मित्र चन्द्रबदन के साथ उनके पीछे -पीछे मेन
रोड पर पहुँचा तो सौरभ ने मोटर साइकिल ले जाकर कं शराज यादव की दुकान के सामने मेन रोड पर
रोक दिया। वहां पहले से खड़े S.O बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह व कु छ पुलिस वाले वहां थे कृ ष्णा को
78
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
जबरदस्ती अपनी गाड़ी में बैठाकर लेकर जाने लगे मैं व चन्द्रबदन ने पुलिस वालो से पूछा क्यों ले जा
रहे है तो कु छ पुलिस वाले बोले की हम लोग S.O.G से है पूछताछ के लिए ले जा रहे है सौरभ भी
पुलिस वालो की गाड़ी के साथ-साथ अपनी मोटर साइकिल से गया।
दफा-7 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वाले को ले जाते समय अजय व कं शराज
यादव व मैं तथा गाँव व अगल-बगल के तमाम लोगो ने देखा।
दफा-8 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि कृ ष्णा यादव को थाना बक्शा पुलिस ले जाने के बाद मैं व
चन्द्रबदन यादव भी थाना बक्शा गये मैं व मेरे मित्र चन्द्रबदन ने देखा मेरे भाई कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वाले
लांकअप में बन्द किये थे मेरा भाई रो रहा था। मैं व चन्द्रबदन ने कृ ष्णा से मिलने का प्रयास किया तो
पुलिस वाले मुझे व चन्द्रबदन को गाली-गुफ्ता देते हुए थाने से भगा दिये।
दफा-9 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि थाने में पुलिस वालो द्वारा मेरे भाई कृ ष्णा को लॉकअप में बन्द
करने पर मुझे विश्वास हो गया कि मेरे भाई को पुलिस वाले किसी फर्जी मुकदमें में चालान कर देंगे।
दफा-10 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि अपने छोटे भाई कृ ष्णा को फर्जी मुकदमें में फं साने व प्राण
रक्षा के लिए श्रीमान पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर के मौ० नं०- 9454400280 पर अपने मोबाइल नं०-
9984669989 से दो बार फोन लगभग 5.35 बजे शाम दिनांक 11.02.2021 को फोन किया तथा
सही जबाव न मिलने पर श्रीमान पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर के मोबाइल वाट्सअप पर अपने भाई के
बारे में थाना बक्शा जबरदस्ती उठा ले जाने के बावत मैसेज भी किया था। जिसका रिकार्ड मेरे पास
है।
दफा-11 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि दिनांक 11.02.2021 को समय रात्रि 8 बजे मैं अजय यादव व
मेरी पत्नी सुनीता, मेरी माता सरस्वती देवी, भाभी गुड़िया, चचेरे भाई प्रमोद यादव ओसार में बैठकर
बातचीत कर रहे थे। और हमारे छोटे भाई प्रदीप यादव की पत्नी कोमल यादव की तबियत खराब
होने की वजह से वह घर के अन्दर सोई थी। हम सब परिवारजन कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वाले बिना वजह
के क्यों लेकर गये इसी विषय में बातचीत कर रहे थे। तभी थाना बक्शा S.O अजय कु मार सिंह व
10-12 पुलिस वाले कु छ वर्दी में कु छ सादे वर्दी में मेरे घर पर आये। और भद्दी भद्दी गाली देने लगे।
मेरे व परिवार के पूछने पर कि मेरा भाई कहा है तो पुलिस वाले ने बताया कि तुम्हारा भाई कृ ष्णा
थाने में है।
दफा-12 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मेरे व परिवार वालो के विरोध करने पर बन्दूक दिखाकर चुप
करा दिया। और दरवाजा पीटने लगे। अन्दर मेरे छोटे भाई प्रदीप यादव की पत्नी कोमल यादव
शोरगुल और दरवाजा जोर-जोर से पीटने की वजह से दरवाजा खोला। तो उसको भद्दी-भद्दी गाली
देते हुए हाथ पकड़कर धक्का देते हुए घर से बाहर निकाल दिया। घर में घुसकर बक्शे का ताला
तोड़कर बक्शे में रखा 60 हजार रूपया जो मैने अपने मौसा संतोष यादव पुत्र ज्वाला यादव से खेत
जो मेरा रेहन पर था छु ड़ाने के लिए लिया था।
दफा-13 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि घर के अन्दर रखा हुआ खाना-पीना फे क दिया और धमकाते
हुए व भद्दी-भद्दी गाली देते हुए बोले कि अगर तुम लोग हल्ला गुल्ला करोगे तो तुम सबको मारेंगे।
और कृ ष्णा को जान से मार देंगे। जाते समय घर पर खड़ी अपाचे जिसका नम्बर -UP 62/BF3621
भी उठा ले गये।
दफा-14 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि 11/12.02.2021 को रात्रि लगभग 12.30 बजे वही पुलिस
वाले जो रात्रि 8 बजे आये थे वही पुलिस वाले मेरे भाई कृ ष्णा यादव को घसीटते हुए घर पर लाये तो
मेरे भाई ठीक से खड़ा नहीं हो पा रहा था। बाहर पड़ी चारपाई पर उसे फे क दिये। मेरा भाई जोर -जोर
से कराह रहा था मां-मां मुझे बचा लो। उसके बाद पुलिस वाले मेरे भाई का बाल पकड़कर चारपाई
79
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
से जमीन पर पटक दिया। और पुलिस वाले बोले साले प्रधानी लड़ेगा तो तुझे उस लायक नही
छोडूगा।
दफा-15 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मेरे व परिवार के पूछने पर कि साहब मेरे भाई ने क्या गलती
की है जो आप इसे इतना मारे है और हम गरीब लोगो को क्यो सता रहे है। तो S.O अजय कु मार
सिंह ने गाली देते हुए कहा कि चुप रहो नहीं तो तुम्हारा भी यही हाल करेंगे। और पैसा लाओ तभी
तुम्हारे भाई को छोड़ेगे अगर पैसा नहीं दोगे तो तुम्हारे भाई की जान ले लेंगे। हत्या कर देंगे। मैं व मेरा
पूरा परिवार पुलिस वालो के सामने हाथ जोड़कर रोने लगे कि साहब मेरे भाई को छोड़ दो। लेकिन
भद्दी-भद्दी साली देते हुए मेरे भाई को घसीटते हुए लेकर चले गये।
दफा-18 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मुझे अफवाहन सुबह 12.02.2021 को 8 बजे पता चला कि
मेरे भाई को अजय कु मार सिंह व S.O.G टीम व पुलिस वाले द्वारा हत्या कर दी गयी।
दफा-19 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मैं उक्त सूचना पर क्षेत्राधिकारी सदर के यहाँ गया तो
क्षेत्राधिकारी सदर ने थाने पर फोन कर पता किया पता करने के बार मुझे सदर अस्पताल जौनपुर ले
गये जहां पर मेरे भाई का शव पड़ा था।
दफा-20 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि पुलिस वाले मेरे भाई का पोस्टमार्टम कराने व शव जलाने का
दबाव बनाने लगे। मैने कहा कि पहले मेरे भाई की हत्या का मुकदमा पुलिस वालो पर दर्ज किया
जाय तब पोस्टमार्टम हेतु लाश भेजी जाय।
दफा-21 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि उक्त घटना की सूचना मुख्यमंत्री उ० प्र० सरकार को
I.G.R.S के माध्यम तथा मानवाधिकार आयोग के फै क्स के माध्यम से सूचना दिया व अपने परिवार
वालो को सूचना दिया।
दफा 22 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि अगल-बगल गांव कु छ सम्भान्त व्यक्तियों द्वारा प्रदर्शन सदर
अस्पताल में किया गया काफी दबाव के बाद मेरे भाई के हत्या के बावत मुकदमा उपरोक्त दर्ज हुआ।
दफा-23 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि उक्त अजय कु मार सिंह थानाध्यक्ष बक्शा व S.O.G टीम व
पुलिस वालो के मारने से पुलिस कस्टडी में मेरा भाई मर गया तथा झूठी कहानी बनाकर मेरी भाई के
ऊपर झूठा मुकदमा लिखकर घटना कि लिपा पोती पुलिस द्वारा की जा रही है।
दफा-24 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि उक्त बातें मेरा 161 सी० आर० पी० सी० का बयान मानते
हुए सम्बन्धित विवेचक को प्रेषित करने की कृ पा करें।
अतः श्रीमान जी से अनुरोध है कि उक्त बयान हलफी को मेरा 161 सी०आर०पी० सी० के बयान के
रूप में दर्ज करने की कृ पा करें।
Statements of Kanashraj Yadav
समक्ष,
श्रीमान जिलाधिकारी / पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर
विषयः- मु० अ० सं०- 38/2021 अन्तर्गत धारा-302, 394, 504, 452 I.P.C थाना-बक्शा, जिला-
जौनपुर में 161 Cr.P.C के बयान के सम्बन्ध में-
हलफनामा मिनजानिब कं शराज यादव उ० त० 40 वर्ष पुत्र जलन्धर यादव ग्राम- चकमिर्जापुर, थाना-
बक्शा, जिला-जौनपुर हस्ब जैल हैः-
दफा-1 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि उपरोक्त नाम पते का स्थायी निवासी हूं मेरी दुकान मेन रोड पर
यादव जलपान, कृ ष्णा डेरी के नाम से है।
80
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
दफा-2 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मेरी दुकान इलाहाबाद रोड पर है। दिनांक 11.02.2021 समय
लगभग 3 बजे दिन मेरी दुकान के सामने S.O बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह व करीब 10-12 पुलिस वाले
दो गाड़ी से खड़े थे तभी सौरभ पाठक, कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी पुत्र तिलकधारी मोटर साइकिल से
लेकर पुलिस वाले के पास आया और पीछे से अजय यादव, कृ ष्णा का भाई व चन्द्रबदन यादव भी
आ गये।
दफा-3 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि अजय यादव पुलिस वालो से कृ ष्णा को ले जाने का कारण
पूछा तो पुलिस वाले बोले की S.O.G से ही पूछताछ के लिए ले जा रहे है। मेरे सामने ही S.O बक्शा
अजय कु मार सिंह व S.O.G टीम के पुलिस वालो द्वारा कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी को पकड़कर ले
गये।
दफा-4 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि 12.02.2021 को गाँव के अफवाहन पता चला कि कृ ष्णा
यादव की पुलिस कस्टडी में मौत हो गयी है लाश सदर अस्पताल में पड़ी है।
दफा-5 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि कृ ष्णा की मौत पुलिस वालो के मारने से आयी चोटो के कारण
हुई है।
दफा-6 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि हलफनामा मेरे निजी ज्ञान में सच व सही है न कोई बात झूठ है
न छिपायी गयी, ईश्वर मेरी मदद करें।
Statements of Chandrabadan Yadav
सेवा में,
श्रीमान जिलाधिकारी / पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर
विषयः मु० अ० सं०-38/2021 अन्तर्गत धारा-302, 394, 504, 452.I.P.C थाना-बक्शा, जिला-
जौनपुर में 161 Cr.P.C के बयान के सम्बन्ध में-
हलफनामा मिनजानिब चन्द्रबदन पुत्र बाबूराम यादव उम्र त० 25 वर्ष सा० मौ०-चकमोलनापुर, थाना-
बक्शा, जिला-जौनपुर हस्ब जैल है:-
दफा-1 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मैं उपरोक्त नाम व पते का मूल निवासी हूं तथा मेरे नाम व
बल्दियत का कोई अन्य व्यक्ति मेरे मौजे मे नही है।
दफा-2 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी मेरा मित्र का भाई था।
दफा-3 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी मेरे मित्र का छोटा भाई था जनपद के किसी
भी थाने में कोई मुकदमा नही था कृ ष्णा एक सीधा सादा व्यवहार कु शल लड़का था और वो प्रधान
पद के लिए तैयारी कर रहा था।
दफा-4 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि दिनांक 11/2/2021 को समय 2 बजे से अजय के साथ उनके
घर पर था दिनांक 11/2/2021 को समय करीब 3 बजे मोटरसाइकिल से सौरभ पाठक पुत्र जितेन्द्र
पाठक सा० मौ० सीहीपुर थाना लाइन बाजार जिला जौनपुर कृ ष्णा के घर पर आये तथा कृ ष्णा से
कहे रोड पर चलो बक्सा एस० ओ० अजय कु मार सिंह बुला रहे हैं कृ ष्णा सौरभ पाठक कि बाइक पे
चले गये।
दफा-5 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूँ कि मैं व अजय, सौरभ पाठक के पिछे पिछे कं शराज यादव कि
दुकान के सामने मेन रोड पे गये तो मैने देखा सौरभ ने मोटरसाइकिल ले जाकर कं शराज यादव के
दुकान के सामने मेन रोड पे रोक दिया तो वहां पहले से खड़े एस० ओ० बक्सा अजय कु मार सिंह व
कु छ पुलिस वाले थे कृ ष्णा को दबरदस्ति अपनी गाड़ी लेकर जाने लगे मैं व अजय ने पुलिस वाले से
81
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
पुछा क्यु लेकर जा रहे है तो कु छ पुलिस वाले बोले कि हम एस० ओ० जी० से है पूछताछ के लिए ले
जा रहे है सौरभ पाठक भी पुलिस वालो कि गाड़ी के साथ साथ अपनी मोटरसाइकिल से गया।
दफा-6 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वाले को ले जाते समय अजय व कं शराज
यादव व मैं तथा गाँव व अगल बगल के तमाम लोगो ने देखा।
दफा-7 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि कृ ष्णा यादव को थाना बक्सा पुलिस ले जाने के बाद मैं व
अजय भी थाना बक्सा गये मैं व अजय ने देखा कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वाले लांकअप में बन्द किये थे
कृ ष्णा रो रहा था मैं व अजय ने कृ ष्णा से मिलने का प्रयास किया तो पुलिस वाले गालीगुप्ता देते हुए
थाने से भगा दिये।
दफा-8 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि पुलिस वालो द्वारा मेरे मित्र के भाई कृ ष्णा यादव को लांकअप
में बन्द करने पर मुझे विश्वास हो गया कि कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वाले किसी फर्जि मुकदमें में चलान कर
देंगे।
दफा-9 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि कृ ष्णा को फर्जि मुकदमें मे फं साने व प्राण रक्षा के लिए मेरे
मित्र अजय ने श्रीमान पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर के मो० नं० - 9454400280 पर अपने मोबाइल नं०
9984669989 से दो बार फोन लगभग 5.35 बजे साम दिनांक 11/2/2021 को फोन किया तथा सही
जबाव न मिलने पर श्रीमान पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर के मो० वाट्सप पर अपने भाई के बारे थाना
बक्सा जबरदस्ती उठा ले जाने के बावत मैसेज भी किया था जिसका रिकार्ड अजय के पास है।
दफा-10 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि सुबह पता चला पुलिस वाले एस० ओ० बक्सा अजय कु मार
सिंह व एस० ओ० जी० रात मे कृ ष्णा के घर आये घर में घुसकर 60 हजार रूपया व मोटरसाइकिल
नं० यू० पी० 62 बी० एफ० 3621 उठा ले गये मना करने पर परिवार वालो को भद्दी भद्दी गाली गुप्ता
दिये।
दफा-11 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि सुबह अफवाहन पता चला कि कृ ष्णा यादव कि पुलिस द्वारा
मारने पिटने के वजह से उसकी मृत्यु हो गयी।
दफा-12 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि जब मैं सदर जौनपुर पहुंचा तो कृ ष्णा यादव कि लाश मर्चरी
पर पड़ी थी उसके शरीर पर मारने पिटने कि वजह से गम्भीर चोट के काले निसान थे जो मैंने अपने
मोबाइल से विडीयो रिकार्ड किया जो मेरे पास है।
दफा-13 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि कृ ष्णा यादव कि मृत्यु पुलिस वाले के मारने पिटने से आई
गम्भीर चोटो के कारण थाने के अन्दर हि हो गयी थी।
दफा-14 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि पुलिस वाले अपने को बचाने के लिए कृ ष्णा यादव पर झुठा
मुकदमा लगा कर मामले कि लिपा पोती कर रहे हैं।
दफा-15 मैं बहलफ बयान करता हूं कि उक्त बाते मेरा 161 सी० आर० पी० सी० का बयान मानते
हुए सम्बन्धित विवेचक को प्रेषित करने कि कृ पा करें।
अतः श्रीमान जी से अनुरोध हैं कि उक्त बयान हलफी को मेरा 161 सी० आर० पी० सी० के
बयान के रूप में दर्ज करने कि कृ पा करें।
Statements of Saraswati Devi
सेवा में,
श्रीमान जिलाधिकारी / पुलिस अधीक्षक जौनपुर
82
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
विषयः मु० अ० सं०-38/2021 अन्तर्गत धारा-302, 394, 504, 452, I.P.C थाना-बक्शा, जिला-
जौनपुर में 161 Cr.P.C के बयान के सम्बन्ध में-
हलफनामा मिनजानिब सरस्वती देवी पत्नी तिलकधारी उम्र त० 55 वर्ष सा० मौ०-चकमिर्जापुर,
थाना-बक्शा, जिला-जौनपुर हस्ब जैल है:-
दफा-1 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि मैं उपरोक्त नाम व पते की मूल निवासिनी हूं तथा मेरे नाम व
वल्दियत का कोई अन्य महिला मेरे मौजे मे नही है।
दफा-2 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि कृ ष्णा यादव उर्फ पुजारी मेरा लड़का था।
दफा-3 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि दिनांक 11.02.2021 को समय लगभग 3.00 बजे करीबी
सौरभ पाठक नाम का लड़का मोटरसाईकिल से मेरे घर पर आया कृ ष्णा यादव से कहे चलो तुम्हें
एस० ओ० बक्शा बक्शा अजय कु मार सिंह बुला रहे हैं। मेन रोड पर खड़े है। जब मेरा लड़का कृ ष्णा
सौरभ पाठक गाड़ी पे बैठकर चला गया तब मेरा बड़ा लड़का अजय व चन्द्रबदन भी कृ ष्णा के पीछ -
पीछे रोड पर गया था जहां से पुलिस वालें मेरे लड़के कृ ष्णा को अजय व चन्द्रबदन के सामने गाड़ी में
बैठाकर लेकर चले गयें।
दफा-4 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ मेरे लड़के कृ ष्णा को ले जाने के बाद दिनांक 11.02.2021 रात्रि
8.00 बजे मैं व मेरा परिवार ओसार में बैठकर बात चीत कर रहे थे हमारी छोटी बहु कोमल यादव की
तबियत खराब होने की वजह से घर के अन्दर सोई थी बिना वजह कृ ष्णा को पुलिस वालें क्यों लेकर
गये इसी विषय में बात चीत कर रहे थे। तभी थाना एस० ओ० अजय कु मार सिंह व 10-12 पुलिस
वालें कु छ वर्दी मे कु छ सादे वर्दी में मेरे घर पर आये और भद्दी- भद्दी गाली देने लगे मेरे व मेरे परिवार
के पुछने पर की मेरा बेटा कहा है तो पुलिस वालें ने गाली देते हुए बोला तुम्हारा लड़का थाने में है।
दफा-5 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि मेरे व परिवार वालों के विरोध करने पर बन्दूक दिखाकर
चुपकरा दिया और दरवाजा जोर जोर से पिटने लगें अन्दर मेरी छोटी बहु कोमल शोर -गुल और
दरवाजा जोर-जोर से पीटने की वजह से दरवाजा खोला तो उसको भद्दी -भद्दी गाली देते हुए हाथ
पकड़क धक्का देते हुए घर से बाहर निकाल दिया घर मे घुसकर बक्शे का ताला तोड़कर बक्शे मे
रखा हुआ 60 हजार रुपया निकाल लिये और घर के अन्दर रखा हुआ खाना पीना फे क दिया और
धमकाते हुए व भद्दी भद्दी गाली देते हुए बोले की अगर तुम लोग हल्ला गुल्ला करोगे तो तुम सब को
भी मारेंगे और तुम्हारे लड़के को जान से मार देगे। जाते समय घर पर रखी अपाची मोटरसाईकिल यू०
पी० 62 बी० एफ० 3621 उठा ले गये।
दफा-6 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि पुनः 11/12.02.2021 रात्रि 12.30 बजे मेरे घर पर वही पुलिस
वालें जो रात्रि 8.00 बजे आये थे वही पुलिस वाले मेरी लड़के कृ ष्णा यादव को घसीटते हुए घर पर
लायें तो मेरे लड़का ठीक से खड़ा नहीं हो पा रहा था। दो पुलिस वालें पकड़े हुए थे। बाहर पड़ी
चारपाई पर उसे फे क दिया। मेरा लड़का जोर-जोर से कराह रहा था मां, मां मुझे बचा लो। पुलिस
वाले मुझे बहुत मारे है और मेरी हत्या कर देंगे घर में जो कु छ पैसा हो लाकर इन्हें दे दो और मेरी जान
बचा लो। उसके बाद पुलिस वालें मेरे लड़के का बाल पकड़ कर चारपाई से जमीन पर पटक दिया।
दफा-7 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि पुलिस वाले से पुछी साहब मेरे लड़के की क्या गलती है जो
आप इसे इतना मारे है और हम गरीब लोगों को क्यों सता रहे हैं। फिर पुलिस वालें भद्दी-भद्दी गाली
देते हुए मेरे लड़के को घसीटते हुए लेकर चले गये। और पुलिस वाले ने बोला पैसा लाओं तभी तुम्हारे
लड़के को छोड़ेगे नहीं तो जान से मार देगें।
दफा-8 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि पुलिस वालें एस० ओ० बक्शा व एस० ओ० जी० टीम के लोगों
द्वारा मेरे बेटे की बुरी तरह से मारा पीटा गया है। जब मेरा बेटा मर गया तो उसकी लाश सदर
83
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
अस्पताल में ले जाकर रखकर भाग गये। यह बात दिनांक 12.02.2021 की सुबह गाँव में अफवाहन
पता चला तब मेरा बड़ा लड़का अजय सी० ओ० सदर के यहां गया वहां से जानकारी हुई कि कृ ष्णा
की लाश सदर अस्पताल में है। हम लोग सदर अस्पताल गये मेरे बेटे की मृत शरीर मरचरी पर पड़ा
था।
दफा-9 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि मेरे बेटे कृ ष्णा उर्फ पुजारी की मृत्यु पुलिस वालों के द्वारा मारने
पीटने से हुई। अब पुलिस वालों द्वारा मेरे बेटे के ऊपर झूठा मुकदमा करके मनगढ़न्त कहानी बना रहे
है पुलिस वालों द्वारा लीपा-पोती की जा रही है।
दफा-10 मैं बहलफ बयान करती हूँ कि हलफनामा मेरे निजी ज्ञान में सच व सही है न कोई बात झूठ
है न छिपायी गयी, ईश्वर मेरी मदद करें।
21. Call details filed alongwith the writ petition prima faice showing the complaint
made by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Janupur on 11.02.2021, as
referred in paragraph 19 of this order, is reproduced below :-
"Messages and calls are end-to-end encrypted. No one outside of this chat, not even
WhatsApp can read or listen to them. Tap to learn more
Sir mai Ajay Yadav pakadi chak mirjapur se mera chota bhai chunav ki talvari kar
raha hai prachar prasar kar raha tha chetra me baksha thana utha ke le gai hai muje
asanka hai kahi farji mukada na laga de sir hamari madad kare praadam sir
5:39 PM
Krishna Yadav putra Tilakdhari Yadav
5:39 PM
S
Call History
094544 00280
Mobile, 5:55 PM
Sp Junpur
(S. P Jaunpur)
+Add tag
094544 00280 CALL MESSAGE BLOCK
Mobile, Yesterday 5:34 PM In your contacts
094544 00280
Mobile, Yesterday 5:32 PM (355) 094544 00280
Mobile-BSNL
View call history
[email protected]
Uttar Pradesh East, India
84
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
Message +91 94544 00280"
22. As per the alleged Hospital slip being part of the case diary produced today in
court by the learned Government Advocate in presence of the respondent No.3, the
deceased was brought dead by the Police at District Hospital Jaunpur at about 3:35
A.M. On 12.02.2021, whereas, the Superintendent of Police Jaunpur and the District
Magistrate Jaunpur have stated in their letters all dated 12.02.2021 sent to the
National Human Rights Commission New Delhi and the District Judge Jaunpur that
KRISHNA Yadav had died during treatment at 03:35 P.M. at District Hospital,
Jaunpur. These facts have been mentioned by us only as instances.
23. Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that if this
court directs then investigation shall be carried by the respondent No.5.
24. Perusal of the counter affidavit and copy of the case diary as produced before us
by the learned G.A. Prima facie shows that entire effort of the police is to some how
give clean chit to the accuseds and for this purpose important evidences are being
left and some evidences are being created and manipulated. But presently we do not
want to comment any more since fair investigation is yet to be carried by an
independent and impartial Agency.
25 The facts mentioned above have been noted by us and brief discussion has been
made by us only for the purposes to see as to whether investigation by the police has
been carried honestly, fairly, diligently or attempt is being made to shield guilty
police officers/policemen and to manufacture/create false evidences. Ultimately,
whether the accused policemen have committed offence of murder and other
offences and whether the then Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur and Circle Officer,
Jaunpur were influencing the investigation and are creating false evidences, are
matters of investigation. There are sufficient material on record which prima facie
reveal commission of offence by the accuseds and involvement of higher officers in
consiperacy, destroying evidences and creating false evidences, are matters of
investigation. There are sufficient material on record which prima facie reveal
commission of offence by the accuseds and involvement of higher officers in
consiperacy, destroying evidences and creating false evidences to protect the
accuseds. Fair investigation is the foundation for a fair trial. In the present set of facts
fair investigation by State Police appears to be not possible in view of all the brief
facts and circumstances noted above.
26. This court in writ jurisdiction does not intend to enter into these areas, but with
the sole purpose as to whether fair investigation is being done or not, the facts in
brief have been noted by us. Therefore, the investigation by any agency in a fair
manner, shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by us.
27. Today, learned Government Advocate has stated before us that from the last three
days, efforts are being made for arrest of the accused, but they are absconding and
therefore, N.B.Ws. have been obtained for their arrest, but they could not be arrested
so far.
28. The facts as briefly noted above would further prima facie reveal that officers of
the I.P.S. rank also have some involvement in the murder/death of the deceased
Krishna Yadav, who died in police custody, allegedly due to brutal beating by the
accused policemen.
29. Post mortem report as well as alleged slip dated 12.02.2021 issued by the District
Hospital also prima facie appears to have been managed/fabricated. Serious
85
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
allegations have been made against the police personnel, which cannot be said to be
completely without evidence.
30. In the case of K.V. Rajendran vs. Superintendent of Police vs. CBCID, South
Zone, Chennai and others (2013) 12 SCC 480 (Paras-13, 14 and 17), Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that investigation can be transferred from the State
Investigating Agency to any other independent agency like CBI and the power of
transferring such investigation should be exercised in rare and exceptional cases
where the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to
instil confidence in the public mind or where investigation by the State Police lacks
credibility and it is necessary for having "a fair, honest and complete investigation"
and particularly when it is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial
work of the State Agencies. In the aforesaid case, Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to
its decision in Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Ors (2010) 2 SCC 200 and
observed that in order to do justice and instil confidence in the minds of the victims
as well of the public, the State Police Authorities could not be allowed to continue
with the investigation when allegations and offences were mostly against top
officials. It was further observed that where high officials of State authorities are
involved, or the accusation itself is against the top officials of the investigating
agency thereby allowing them to influence the investigation, and further that it is so
necessary to do justice and to instil confidence in the investigation or where the
investigation is prima facie found to be tainted/biased, the court could exercise its
Constitutional powers for transferring an investigation from the State investigating
agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI only in rare and
exceptional cases.
31. In Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and others (2015) 9 SCC 795
(Para-15), Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the need of fair, proper and
impartial investigation, considered the transfer of investigation to CBI and held as
under:
"15. Suffice it to say that transfers have been ordered in varied situations but while
doing so the test applied by the Court has always been whether a direction for
transfer, was keeping in view the nature of allegations, necessary with a view to
making the process of discovery of truth credible. What is important is that this
Court has rarely, if ever, viewed at the threshold the prayer for transfer of
investigation to CBI with suspicion. There is no reluctance on the part of the Court to
grant relief to the victims or their families in cases, where intervention is called for,
nor is it necessary for the petitioner seeking a transfer to make out a cast-iron case of
abuse or neglect on the part of the State Police, before ordering a transfer. Transfer
can be ordered once the Court is satisfied on the available material that such a course
will promote the cause of justice, in a given case."
32. The criminal justice system mandates that any investigation into the crime should
be fair, in accordance with law and should not be tainted. It is equally important that
interested or influential persons are not able to misdirect or hijack the investigation,
so as to throttle a fair investigation resulting in the offenders escaping punitive
course of law. These are important facets of the rule of law. Breach of rule of law
amounts to negation of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article
21 of the Constitution of India makes it clear that the procedure in criminal trials
must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive, vide Menka
Gandhi vs. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 (para-7) and Vinubhai Haribhai
Malviya and others vs. State of Gujrat and another AIR 2019 SC 5233 (paras-16 and
86
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
17) and Subramanian Swamy vs. C.B.I. (2014) 8 SCC 682 (para-86). Article 21
enshrines and guarantees the precious right of life and personal liberty to a person
which can only be deprived on following the procedure established by law in a fair
trial which assures the safety of the accused. The assurance of a fair trial is the first
imperative of the dispensation of justice, vide Commissioner of Police, Delhi vs.
Registrar, Delhi High Court, New Delhi AIR 1997 SC 95 (para-16). The ultimate aim
of all investigation and inquiry whether by the police or by the Magistrate is to
ensure that those who have actually committed a crime, are correctly booked and
those who have not, are not arraigned to stand trial. This is the minimal and
fundamental requirement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Interpretation of
provisions of Cr.P.C. needs to be made so as to ensure that Article 21 is followed
both in letter and in sprit. "A speedy trial" is the essence of companion in concept in
"fair trial". Both being inalienable jurisprudentially, the guarantee under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India embraces both life and liberty of the accused as well as
interest of the victim, his near and dear ones as well as of the community at large
and, therefore, cannot be alienated from each other. A fair trial includes fair
investigation as reflected from Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If the
investigation is neither effective nor purposeful nor objective nor fair, the courts may
if considered necessary, may order fair investigation, further investigation or
reinvestigation as the case may be to discover the truth so as to prevent miscarriage
of justice. However, no hard and fast rules as such can be prescribed by way of
uniform and universal invocation and decision shall depend upon facts and
circumstances of each case.
33. Fair and proper investigation is the primary duty of the investigating officer. In
every civilized society, the police force is invested with powers of investigation of a
crime to secure punishment for the criminal and it is in the interest of the society that
the investigating agency must act honestly and fairly and not resort to fabricating
false evidence or creating false clues only with a view to secure conviction because
such acts shake the confidence of the common man not only in the investigating
agency but in the ultimate analysis in the system of dispensation of criminal justice.
Proper result must be obtained by recourse to proper means, otherwise it would be an
invitation to anarchy, vide Rampal Pithwa Rahidas vs. State of Maharastra 1994
Suppl, (2) SCC 73 (para-37). Investigation must be fair and effective and must
proceed in the right direction in consonance with the ingredients of the offence and
not in a haphazard manner moreso in serious case. Proper and fair investigation on
the part of the investigating officer is the backbone of rule of law vide Sasi Thomas
vs. State (2006) 12 SCC 421 (para-15 and 18).
34. Therefore, considering the fact and circumstances of the case in its entirety and
applying the principles of law aforenoted, we direct the respondent no.5 to
investigate forthwith in FIR No. 0038/2021, dated 12.02.2021 under Sections 302,
394, 452 & 504 I.P.C. P.S. - Baksa, District - Jaunpur, and accordingly investigation
is transferred/entrusted forthwith to the respondent No.5. The respondent nos. 1, 2, 3
& 4 shall ensure that the entire evidences and papers relating to the aforesaid case
crime/FIR are transferred to Investigating Officer of the respondent No.5 for
investigation. An affidavit of compliance shall be filed on behalf of the respondent
no.5 and also by the State-respondents on or before the next date fixed.
35. Put up as a fresh case on 20.09.2021 at 02:00 P.M. before this bench for further
hearing."
87
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
8. The CBI then took up the case and lodged a First Information Report on
17.09.2021 at 06:15 pm as RC0532021S0010, under Sections 302, 394, 452, 504
IPC, P.S. S.C.B. Lucknow, District Lucknow against S.O.G. Team, Ajai Kumar
Singh S.O. Baksa along with police personnels of Police Station Baksa, District
Jaunpur.
9. The CBI completed the investigation and has submitted a charge sheet under
Section 34 read with Sections 302, 330, 331, 218 read with Section 120-B IPC on
22.02.2022 in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI Lucknow against 19
police officials including the applicant. The pleading regarding the same has been
given in para 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the CBI.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is a police personnels
and since 2015 he is serving at Surveillance Cell, Jaunpur and has been awarded with
various commendation certificates for his distinguished services. Para 19 has been
placed before the Court to buttress the same.
11. It is argued that the applicant joined his services in the Police Department in the
year 1998 and was actively involved in the encounter of famous Kallu Najju Gang in
Shahjahanpur in which he received a bullet injury in his left eye and lost his vision in
November, 2002. He was admitted for treatment from 09.11.2000 to 02.12.2000 in
K.G.M.U., Lucknow. Para 18 and annexure 6 of the affidavit being some newspapers
cutting have been placed before the Court to buttress the said arguments. It is argued
while placing para 23 of the affidavit that the applicant has been made an accused in
the present case by the CBI intentionally as he was interrogated on 26.11.2021
before his arrest and was offered to become an "approver" in the case which was
declined by him after which he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
12. It is next argued while placing para 16 and 17 of the affidavit that the
involvement of the applicant in the present case has been shown on the basis of GD
No. 005 dated 12.02.2021 allegedly transcribed at 01:30 hrs at Police Station Baksa,
District Jaunpur pertaining to the arrest of the deceased in which the name of the
applicant finds place and he is shown to be a signatory of the arrest and recovery
memo of the deceased. The copy of the said GD has been placed before the Court
which is annexure S.A.2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 28.05.2022. While
placing para 17 of the affidavit in support of the bail application, it is argued that the
signature of the applicant in the said recovery memo is a forged signature and the
applicant has also given his sample to the CBI for forensic analysis which if done
would clear the doubts. It is further argued while placing para 24 of the affidavit that
the applicant has no previous criminal history and is not previous convict in any
case. The applicant is in jail since 27.11.2021.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the CBI has vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail. It is argued that the present case is a case of custodial death. There are eye
witness account of the police taking away the deceased from his house and
committing robbery. It is further argued that looking to the seriousness and the
gravity of the offence, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.09.2021
transferred the investigation to the CBI from the local police by a detailed order after
having being fully satisfied that the present case is a case of custodial death.
14. It is argued that the deceased was brutally beaten by police personnels while
being in police custody. An opinion was taken from the department of Forensic
88
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
Medicine AIIMS, New Delhi which was given vide letter dated 10.01.2022 of its
Professor and Head of the Department in which the Board opined as follows:
"The body of the deceased had multiple blunt force injuries as described above
(Image 1-3). In such type of injuries, capillaries and other blood vessels get ruptured
leading to internal bleeding in the underlying muscular layers and tissues causing
excessive and fatal internal blood loss from the circulatory system, which then leads
to circulatory collapse and shock.
The Medical Board is of the opinion that the cause of the death is ''Shock due to
cumulative effects of multiple blunt force injuries sustained to the body. All injuries
are antemortem in nature and fresh in duration. These injuries are only collectively
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature."
15. It is further argued that the opinion of the Forensic Department of AIIMS is
specific to the fact that the injuries received by the deceased, were collectively
sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. It is argued that the
applicant was one of the police personnels who had brought the deceased from his
house as is evident from the arrest and recovery memo and the GD entry of the
concerned Police Station. He is one of the signatories of the said memo.
16. It is argued that the Medical Board of AIIMS has opined that the nature of
injuries as received were caused by cylindrical objects like a rod, baton or lathi
which are the common articles of assault by the police. It is argued that as such the
present bail application of the applicant thus deserves to be rejected.
17. Custodial violence, custodial torture and custodial deaths have always been a
concern for civilized society. Times and again the judicial verdicts of the Apex Court
and other Courts have shown their concern and anguish in such matters.
18. In the celebrated case of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal : (1997) 1 SCC 416
the Apex Court while expressing its anguish in cases of custodial deaths has
observed as follows:-
"22. Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society
governed by the rule of law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the
Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot wish
away the problem. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs
during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries of the
Government become law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would
encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto
himself thereby leading to anarchanism. No civilised nation can permit that to
happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a
policeman arrests him? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his
arrest? These questions touch the spinal cord of human rights jurisprudence. The
answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic "No". The precious right guaranteed by Article
21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials, detenues
and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law
by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.
23. In Neelabati Bahera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 (to which Anand, J.
was a party) this Court pointed out that prisoners and detenues are not denuded of
their fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is only such restrictions as are
89
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
permitted by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental rights
of the arrestees and detenues. It was observed: (SCC p. 767, para 31)
"It is axiomatic that convicts, prisoners or undertrials are not denuded of their
fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is only such restrictions, as are permitted
by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental right by such
persons. It is an obligation of the State to ensure that there is no infringement of the
indefeasible rights of a citizen to life, except in accordance with law, while the
citizen is in its custody. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials or other prisoners in
custody, except according to procedure established by law. There is a great
responsibility on the police or prison authorities to ensure that the citizen in its
custody is not deprived of his right to life. His liberty is in the very nature of things
circumscribed by the very fact of his confinement and therefore his interest in the
limited liberty left to him is rather precious. The duty of care on the part of the State
is strict and admits of no exceptions. The wrongdoer is accountable and the State is
responsible if the person in custody of the police is deprived of his life except
according to the procedure established by law."
24. Instances have come to our notice where the police has arrested a person without
warrant in connection with the investigation of an offence, without recording the
arrest, and the arrested person has been subjected to torture to extract information
from him for the purpose of further investigation or for recovery of case property or
for extracting confession etc. The torture and injury caused on the body of the
arrestee has sometimes resulted into his death. Death in custody is not generally
shown in the records of the lock-up and every effort is made by the police to dispose
of the body or to make out a case that the arrested person died after he was released
from custody. Any complaint against such torture or death is generally not given any
attention by the police officers because of ties of brotherhood. No first information
report at the instance of the victim or his kith and kin is generally entertained and
even the higher police officers turn a blind eye to such complaints. Even where a
formal prosecution is launched by the victim or his kith and kin, no direct evidence is
available to substantiate the charge of torture or causing hurt resulting into death, as
the police lock-up where generally torture or injury is caused is away from the public
gaze and the witnesses are either police men or co-prisoners who are highly reluctant
to appear as prosecution witnesses due to fear of retaliation by the superior officers
of the police. It is often seen that when a complaint is made against torture, death or
injury, in police custody, it is difficult to secure evidence against the policemen
responsible for resorting to third degree methods since they are in charge of police
station records which they do not find difficult to manipulate. Consequently,
prosecution against the delinquent officers generally results in acquittal. State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamsunder Trivedi & Ors., (1995) 4 SCC 262 is an apt case
illustrative of the observations made by us above. ........."
19. Further in the case of Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan Vs. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble
and another: (2003) 7 SCC 749 the Apex Court has again shown its anguish in the
matters of custodial violence, torture and abuse of police powers. It has been
observed as follows:-
"If you once forfeit the confidence of our fellow citizens you can never regain their
respect and esteem. It is true that you can fool all the people some of the time, and
some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time", said
Abraham Lincoln. This Court in Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana (1980 (3) SCC
90
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
70), took note of these immortal observations (SCC p. 72, para 4) while deprecating
custodial torture by the police.
2. Custodial violence, torture and abuse of police power are not peculiar to this
country, but it is widespread. It has been the concern of international community
because the problem is universal and the challenge is almost global. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 which marked the emergence of a worldwide
trend of protection and guarantee of certain basic human rights stipulates in Article 5
that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
of punishment". Despite this pious declaration, the crime continues unabated, though
every civilized nation shows its concern and makes efforts for its eradication.
3. If it is assuming alarming proportions, now a days, all around it is merely on
account of the devilish devices adopted by those at the helm of affairs who proclaim
from roof tops to be the defenders of democracy and protectors of people's rights and
yet do not hesitate to condescend behind the screen to let loose their men in uniform
to settle personal scores, feigning ignorance of what happens and pretending to be
peace loving puritans and saviours of citizens' rights.
4. Article 21 which is one of the luminary provisions in the Constitution of India,
1950 (in short "the Constitution") and is a part of the scheme for fundamental rights
occupies a place of pride in the Constitution. The article mandates that no person
shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure
established by law. This sacred and cherished right i.e. personal liberty has an
important role to play in the life of every citizen. Life or personal liberty includes a
right to live with human dignity. There is an inbuilt guarantee against torture or
assault by the State or its functionaries. Chapter V of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") deals with the powers of arrest of persons and
the safeguards required to be followed by the police to protect the interest of the
arrested person. Articles 20 (3) and 22 of the Constitution further manifest the
constitutional protection extended to every citizen and the guarantees held out for
making life meaningful and not a mere animal existence. It is therefore difficult to
comprehend how torture and custodial violence can be permitted to defy the rights
flowing from the Constitution. The dehumanizing torture, assault and death in
custody which have assumed alarming proportions raise serious questions about the
credibility of rule of law and administration of criminal justice system. The
community rightly gets disturbed. The cry for justice becomes louder and warrants
immediate remedial measures. This Court has in a large number of cases expressed
concern at the atrocities perpetuated by the protectors of law. Justice Brandies'
observation which have become classic are in following immortal words:
Government as the omnipotent and omnipresent teacher teaches the whole people by
its example, if the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it
invites every man to become a law into himself. (In Olmstead v. United States, 277
US 438, US at p. 485, quoted in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, US at p. 659)
5. The diabolic recurrence of police torture resulting in a terrible scare in the minds
of common citizens that their lives and liberty are under a new and unwarranted peril
because guardians of law destroy the human rights by custodial violence and torture
and invariably resulting in death. The vulnerability of human rights assumes a
traumatic torture when functionaries of the State whose paramount duty is to protect
the citizens and not to commit gruesome offences against them, in reality perpetrate
them. The concern which was shown in Raghubir Singh case (1980 (3) SCC 70)
91
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
more than two decades back seems to have fallen to leaf ears and the situation does
not seem to be showing any noticeable change. The anguish expressed in Gauri
Shanker Sharma v. State of U. P. (AIR 1990 SC 709), Bhagwan Singh and Anr. v.
State of Punjab (1992 (3) SCC 249), Smt. Nilabati Behera @ Lalita Behera v. State
of Orissa and Ors. (AIR 1993 SC 1960), Pratul Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar and
Anr. (1994 Supp. (3) SCC 100), Kewal Pati (Smt.) v. State of U. P. and Ors. (1995
(3) SCC 600), Inder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1995 (3) SCC 702), State of
M. P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and Ors. (1995 (4) SCC 262) and by now celebrated
decision in D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997 (1) SCC 416) seems to have
caused not even any softening attitude to the inhuman approach in dealing with
persons in custody.
6. Rarely, in cases of police torture or custodial death, direct ocular evidence of the
complicity of the police personnel alone who can only explain the circumstances in
which a person in their custody had died. Bound as they are by the ties of
brotherhood, it is not unknown that the police personnel prefer to remain silent and
more often than not even pervert the truth to save their colleagues - and the present
case is an apt illustration - as to how one after the other police witnesses feigned
ignorance about the whole matter.
7. The exaggerated adherence to and insistence upon the establishment of proof
beyond every reasonable doubt by the prosecution, at times even when the
prosecuting agencies are themselves fixed in the dock, ignoring the ground realities,
the fact-situation and the peculiar circumstances of a given case, as in the present
case, often results in miscarriage of justice and makes the justice delivery system
suspect and vulnerable. In the ultimate analysis the society suffers and a criminal
gets encouraged. Tortures in police custody, which of late are on the increase, receive
encouragement by this type of an unrealistic approach at times of the courts as well
because it reinforces the belief in the mind of the police that no harm would come to
them if one prisoner dies in the lockup because there would hardly be any evidence
available to the prosecution to directly implicate them with the torture. The courts
must not lose sight of the fact that death in police custody is perhaps one of the worst
kind of crimes in a civilized society, governed by the rule of law and poses a serious
threat to an orderly civilized society. Torture in custody flouts the basic rights of the
citizens recognized by the Indian Constitution and is an affront to human dignity.
Police excesses and the maltreatment of detainees/under - trial prisoners or suspects
tarnishes the image of any civilised nation and encourages the men in "khaki" to
consider themselves to be above the law and sometimes even to become law unto
themselves. Unless stern measures are taken to check the malady of the very fence
eating the crops, the foundations of the criminal justice delivery system would be
shaken and the civilization itself would risk the consequence of heading, towards
total decay resulting in anarchy and authoritarianism reminiscent of barbarism. The
courts must, therefore, deal with such cases in a realistic manner and with the
sensitivity which they deserve, otherwise the common man may tend to gradually
lose faith in the efficacy of the system of judiciary itself, which if it happen will be a
sad day, for anyone to reckon with."
20. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records and
as per the judgments of the Apex Court as referred to above, it is evident that the
present case is a case of custodial death. The case of the prosecution is of the
deceased being taken away from his house to Police Station Baksa, District Jaunpur
which is not in dispute. An arrest memo was prepared regarding his arrest by the
92
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
officials of the police after which a GD was also drawn regarding the same. In the
arrest memo, the applicant is one of the persons arresting him and is also a signatory
to it. His name as such finds place in the corresponding GD No. 005 dated
12.02.2021. The injuries as received by the deceased cover basically the entire back
side of his body. The opinion of the Board of AIIMS, New Delhi is specific to the
fact that he died due to collective effect of the injuries received by him. The same
would go to show that the death was not natural. The present case is a case of
custodial torture and death with robbery in a well planned conspiracy. The applicant
is in the police force which is considered to be disciplined force and enshrined with
the pious duty of maintaining law and order and protecting the citizens. The present
case is not a case of police excess but a clear cut case of abuse of police powers and
police high handedness. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
21. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on
record, the order of the Division Bench of this Court and the dictum of the Apex
Court, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
22. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected."
6. In so far as the applicant is concerned, he disputes his signature in the GD and the
arrest memo which cannot be looked into at this stage. Further the location of the
mobile of the applicant as per the CDR is not a fact conclusive of the issue that the
applicant was not present at the police station. The case of the applicant is at par with
that of co-accused Ramkrit Yadav whose bail has been rejected by this Court vide
order dated 17.08.2022.
7. Looking to the facts of the case and the material on record, this Court comes to the
conclusion that the bail of the applicant also deserves to be rejected. Hence, the bail
application of the applicant is hereby rejected."
46. A co-accused Jitendra Singh whose case is identical to that of the
applicant was granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order
dated 15.02.2023 against which the informant preferred a Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No. 9816 of 2023 (Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs. The State of
Uttar Pradesh & ORS.) before the Apex Court which was allowed vide
order dated 12.03.2024 and the bail granted to him was cancelled, the
said order is already quoted in the leading bail application of co-accused
Jaysheel Tiwari. The trial in the present matter is going. With regards to
the argument of the case of the applicant having parity with co-accused
Kamal Bihari Bind who has been granted bail vide order dated
25.05.2023 is concerned, it is settled law that parity alone cannot be a
ground for grant of bail. The Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad
v. State of Goa : 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1657 considering the submission
of parity for grant of bail has held as under:
"9. It is trite that grant of bail to one accused does not, ipso facto, constitute
a ground for granting bail to another accused. Parity is not a mechanical
93
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
mathematical formula; it must be assessed based on the specific role
attributed to each accused in the factual matrix.
10. Considering the dicta in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai
Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230, Sagar v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC
2584 and Rekha Sengar v. State of M.P., (2021) 3 SCC 729, in the light of
the facts and circumstances of this case, we are unable to hold that the
petitioner can claim an order for grant of bail on the ground of parity."
47. In the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai
Makwana : (2021) 6 SCC 230, the Apex Court has been held as under:
"25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court
granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and
innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity
of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.
[Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]
, this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High
Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider
the totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed :
(SCC p. 515, para 17)
“17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that
the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of
the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the
second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity.
It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and,
therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC
OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non-application of mind. That apart,
as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent
has been charge-sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The
High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to
pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount
to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside."
26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which
the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both
dated 21-12-2020 [Pravinbhai Hirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC
OnLine Guj 2986] , [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat,
2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli
(A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh
Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22-10-2020
[Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj
2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was “assigned
similar role of armed with stick (sic)”. Again, bail was granted to Vanraj
Koli (A-16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the
ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who
were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently
misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while
granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that
another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is
not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of
94
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached
to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is
of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity
on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster
under the law."
48. In the case of Sagar v. State of U.P. : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2584
the Apex Court has been held as under:
"10. The question that arises for consideration is whether, as done by the High
Court in the impugned order, parity with the co-accused persons can be the
sole reason for granting bail. Bail has often been stated to be the rule, and jail,
the exception. This cannot be emphasized enough. At the same time, this,
however, does not mean that the relief of bail is to be granted without due
regard to the circumstances involved in the alleged offence for which the
accused person has been arrested. In this regard, it has to be noted that a
Court, while granting bail, has to consider a number of aspects. Judgments too
many to count, delivered by this Court have delineated the relevant
considerations to be kept in mind. A recent reiteration thereof was in Ashok
Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690 The relevant
extracts thereof are as under:—
"19. The principles which emerge as a result of the above discussion are as
follows:
(i) An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same
footing as an application for cancellation of bail;
(ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of the
evidence adduced by prosecution. The merits of such evidence must not be
adjudicated at the stage of bail;
(iii) An order granting bail must reflect application of mind and assessment of
the relevant factors for grant of bail that have been elucidated by this Court.
[See: Y v. State of Rajasthan (Supra); Jaibunisha v. Meherban and Bhagwan
Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu]
(iv) An appeal against grant of bail may be entertained by a superior Court on
grounds such as perversity; illegality; inconsistency with law; relevant factors
not been taken into consideration including gravity of the offence and impact
of the crime;
(v) However, the Court may not take the conduct of an accused subsequent to
the grant bail into consideration while considering an appeal against the grant
of such bail. Such grounds must be taken in an application for cancellation of
bail; and
(vi) An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed to be used as a
retaliatory measure. Such an appeal must be confined only to the grounds
discussed above.”
11. It is clear from the perusal of the above factors that the High Court failed
to consider all that was relevant. On parity, it is necessary to refer to Ramesh
Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana(Koli), (2021) 6 SCC 230.
This Court observed that while utilizing parity as a ground for bail, the same
95
BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024
must focus on the role of the accused and cannot be utilized solely because
another accused person was grant
******************
14. What flows from the above judgments, which have been referred to, only to
the limited extent indicated above, is that the High Courts speak in one voice
that parity is not the sole ground on which bail can be granted. That,
undoubtedly, is the correct position in law. The word ‘parity’ is defined by the
Cambridge Dictionary as “equality, especially of pay or position.”,
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/parity. When weighing an
application on parity, it is ‘position’ that is the clincher. The requirement of
‘position’ is not met only by involvement in the same offence. Position means
what the person whose application is being weighed, his position in crime, i.e.,
his role etc. There can be different roles played - someone part of a large group,
intending to intimidate; an instigator of violence; someone who throws hands at
the other side, instigated by such words spoken by another, someone who fired
a weapon or swung a machete - parity of these people will be with those who
have performed similar acts, and not with someone who was part of the group
to intimidate the other by the sheer size of the gathering, with another who
attempted to hack away at the opposer's limbs with a weapon."
49. There is no fresh & new ground in this bail application. The bail
application is accordingly rejected.
50. Nevertheless, this Court is not oblivious of the applicant's right to
a speedy trial. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial, as per its
case routine and diary, and ensure that the no unnecessary adjournments
are granted to either of the parties so as to unnecessarily delay it.
September 30, 2026
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…