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 माँझे बचा लो पुलिलोस वालो माँझे जान स माँर 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 द्वार बरबर करहन पुर पु छन पुर बतयु किक सहब आजा कर$ब 2.00 बजा देपुहर माँ ग्रामाँ किवारहदेपुर क पुस एक माँटर सइकिकलो स टक्कर लोगें गेंयु था। रहगें$र माँझे उसक सथा मिमाँलोकर माँझे कफी- माँर पु$ट था। जिजासक- वाजाह स माँर शर$र माँ जागेंह जागेंह चाट आयु$ ह0। जिजासक करण देदे2 ह रह ह0। किगेंरफ्तर$ क- स चान उसक- माँ क माँ4क पुर ह$ दे$ जा रह$ ह0। किकन्त गेंवाह$ पुर हस्तक्षर करन स माँन कर रह$ ह0। दे4रन किगेंरफ्तर$ वा बरमाँदेगें$ माँनवाधि9कर आयुगें वा माँनवा$यु सवा:च्चा न्युयुलोयु क किनदे:श क पुलोन किकयु गेंयु अभियुक्त क युह क< त्यु 9र 392/411/414 देकिवा क अपुर9 ह0। अत> करण किगेंरफ्तर$ बतकर समाँयु कर$ब 22.25 बजा हिहरसत पुलिलोस माँ लिलोयु गेंयु फीदे2 माँ4क पुर टचा@ वा किबजालो$ क- रशन$ माँ लिलोखकर पुढ़कर स$ सम्बन्धिE9त क अलोमाँत बनवायु जा रह ह0। फीदे2 क- प्रकित अभियुक्त क दे$ जा रह$ ह0।" 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: "सवा माँ श्री$माँन पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर माँहदेयु सकिवानयु किनवादेन ह0 किक प्रथा@ अजायु क माँर युदेवा S/O कितलोक9र$ युदेवा ग्रामाँ पुकड़ी$ चाकमिमाँजा2पुर थान बक्श जिजालो जा4नपुर क किनवास$ हूँ घटन हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 समाँयु 3 बजा हिदेन माँ S.O.G. ट$माँ वा S.O. बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह माँयु हमाँरह$ पु र$ फीस2 क सथा माँर घर पुर आयु और माँर इ2 क< ष्ण क माँर युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ पुत्र कितलोक9र$ उम्र 24 वार्ष2 पुकड़ीकर थान लो गेंयु। जाबकिक माँर इ2 क किवारुद्ध कइ2 आपुरधि9क माँकदेमाँ जानपुदे क किकस$ थान माँ नह$ ह0। माँर इ2 व्यवाहर क शलो व्यक्तिक्त थान माँर इ2 क S.O.G. ट$माँ वा S.O बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह फीजा@ माँकदेमाँ माँ फी सन क किनयुत स थान माँ ब0ठायु था रकित्र 08.00 बजा S.O. बक्श माँयु हमाँरहिहयु वा पुलिलोस वालो 10 क- सKख्यु था$ आयु और घर माँ घसकर बक्स क तलो तड़ीकर 60,000 रुपुयु वा समाँन S.O. बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा पुलिलोस वालो उठा लो गेंयु। माँन करन पुर किक माँहिहलोओ क द्दी$ -2 गेंलिलोयु हिदेयु पुन> 12.30 बजा रकित्र माँ S.O.G. प्रर$ वा S.O. बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह माँयु हमाँरहिहयु बलोर 10 माँटर सइकिकलो स 10 स 12 पुलिलोस वालो क सथा माँर इ2 क माँर घर लोकर आयु माँर इ2 खड़ी नह[ ह रह था जार-जार चिचाल्लो रह था माँ- माँ माँझे बचा लो पुलिलोस वालो पुलिलोस वालो माँझे जान स माँर देगें। और घर पुर रख$ माँटर सइ किकलो $ उठा लो गेंयु। माँ^ थान पुर गेंयु माँझे पुलिलोस वालो मिमाँलोन नह[ हिदेयु। सबह स चान मिमाँलो$ किक पुलिलोस कस्टडी$ माँ माँर इ2 किक माँ4त ह गेंयु$ माँर इ2 क- हत्यु उपुरक्त पुलिलोस वालो द्वार क- गेंयु$ ह0। अत> श्री$माँन जा$ स अनर9 ह0 किक S.O. बक्श क आदेलिशत कर किक तत्कलो$न S.O. बक्श वा S.O.G. ट$माँ माँयु हमाँरह$यु क किवारुद्ध हत्यु वा लो ट क माँकदेमाँ देजा2 कर आवाश्युक कयु2वाह$ कर। प्रथा@ अजायु क माँर युदेवा S/O कितलोक9र$ युदेवा ग्रामाँ पुकड़ी$ चाकमिमाँजा2पुर थान बक्श जा4नपुर MO 9984669989 हस्तक्षर अजायु युदेवा। नट- उक्त तहर$र वा कयुमाँ$ ह० माँ० सरन्द्र क माँर द्वार बलो -बलोकर अक्षरश> कम्प्यु टर माँ फी-डी करवायु गेंयु।" 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 : "सक्ष$ आइ2० डीब्लो ० 12 क० माँन$र्ष क माँर, थान बक्श न ब्युन किकयु ह0 किक- "8. The IW 16 Kansraj Yadav (an independent witness) has stated before the Judicial Magistrate on 11.02.2021 as under : "सक्ष$ आइ2॰डीब्लो ० 16 कK सरजा युदेवा न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "माँ^ चायु क- दूकन लोगेंत हूँ। हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 माँ माँ0 अपुन$ दूकन पुर था। दूकन क समाँन एस०ओ० बक्श क- गेंड़ी$ खड़ी$ था$। उस समाँयु लोगेंगें 03.30 बजा रह था। वाहK पुर 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो था। वाह स4र पुठाक क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क ब0ठाकर लोकर आयु और माँरू दूकन क समाँन आकर माँटरसइ2किकलो रक दे$। पु$छ स चान्द्रबदेन वा अजायु युदेवा माँटरसइ2किकलो स आयु। क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुलिलोसवालो न गेंड़ी$ माँ डीलो लिलोयु। अजायु वा चान्द्रबदेन न पुलिलोसवालो स पु छतछ क- युह हमाँ नह[ माँलो माँ ह0। क< ष्ण युदेवा स माँर$ दूकन क समाँन किकस$ न माँरपु$ट नह$ क- था$। वा लोगें उस लोकर वाहK स चालो गेंयु था। अगेंलो हिदेन माँझे पुत चालो किक क< ष्ण युदेवा क- माँ<त्यु ह गेंयु$ ह0। माँर समाँन क< ष्ण युदेवा स किकस$ न कइ2 माँरपु$ट नह$ क- था$। माँझे इसक अलोवा और कइ2 जानकर$ नह$ ह0।" 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: "सक्ष$ आइ2॰डीब्लो ० 2 श्री$माँत$ सत्ता न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "माँर त$न लोड़ीक था। बडी क नमाँ अजायु युदेवा, दूसर बट क नमाँ क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ तथा छट बट क प्रदे$पु युदेवा ह0। स4रवा पुKहिडीत माँर घर आयु था। तर$ख युदे नह$ ह0। बलो किक बक्श क देरगें जा$ क< ष्ण युदेवा क बलोयु ह0। 03.00 बजा सKयु क< ष्ण युदेवा क स4रवा पुKहिडीत अपुन$ गेंडी$ पुर ब0ठाकर लो गेंयु था। अजायु युदेवा वा गेंKवा क चान्द्रबदेन क माँ^ थान पुर जा$ था$, किक क्यु बत ह0 जा क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुलिलोस बलोयु$ ह0। किफीर रत माँ 08.00 बजा 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो जिजासमाँ क छ सदे$ वादे@ माँ था, माँर घर आयु और घर माँ तड़ी-फीडी करन लोगें। पुट$ क तलो तडीकर 60,000/- रूपुयु लो ट लिलोयु। माँ0न रकन चाह त माँझे घस$टकर बहर कर हिदेयु। पुलिलोस वालो लो टमाँर करक 60,000/- रूपुयु लो ट कर चालो गेंयु। रत माँ^ 12.30 बजा पुलिलोस वालो माँर लोड़ीक क< ष्ण युदेवा क जिजासक बहुत माँरपु$ट रख था क लोकर माँर घर आयु और कह किक डीढ लोख रुपुयु दे नह$ त तम्हर लोड़ीक क जान स माँर देगें। 7 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 माँ0न कह किक माँ^ पु0स नह$ दे सकत$। किफीर पुलिलोस वालो माँर लोड़ीक क लोकर वामिपुस चालो गेंयु। अगेंलो हिदेन सबह 05.00 बजा पुत चालो किक क< ष्ण क- माँ<त्यु ह गेंयु$ ह0। माँर घर माँ माँर समाँन क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुलिलोस वालो न नह$ माँर था पुरKत वाह बर$ चाटिटलो था।" हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क रकित्र गेंश्त माँ था। रकित्र 10.25 स रकित्र गेंश्त माँ ड्यू ट$ माँ था। माँ^ एस०आइ2० सन$लो क माँर कितवार$ क सथा था वा हमाँरह$ क० समाँ$र क माँर क सथा रकित्र गेंश्त क- ड्यू ट$ माँ था। रकित्र 01.30 स पु4न 2.00 क ब$चा थान स फीन आयु और हमाँ लोगें क थान पुर बलोयु गेंयु। थान पुर जाकर पु छन पुर हमाँ लोगें क बतयु किक किकस$ माँलोजिजामाँ क- तब$युत खरब ह गेंयु$ ह0, उसक अस्पुतलो जान ह0। माँलोजिजामाँ क नमाँ एस०एचा०ओ० सहब न देरगें जा$ क बतयु था किक उसक नमाँ क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ ह0 और युह $ बतयु था किक किक इसक पुट माँ देदे2 ह रह ह0। किफीर रकित्र दे बजा क लोगेंगें माँ^ वा एस०आइ2० सन$लो क माँर कितवार$ वा क० समाँ$र क माँर द्वार माँलोजिजामाँ क प्रथामिमाँक स्वास्थ्यु क न्द्र न4पुड़ीवा लो जायु गेंयु। माँ^ क< ष्ण युदेवा क शर$र पुर कइ2 चाट नह[ देख। क< ष्ण युदेवा न एस कइ2 कथान नह$ किकयु था किक उसक सथा किकस$ पुलिलोसकमाँ@ न माँरपु$ट क- ह0। अस्पुतलो थान स लोगेंगें दे किक०माँ$० क- दूर$ पुर ह0। अस्पुतलो स डीक्टर सहब न क< ष्ण युदेवा क जिजालो अस्पुतलो रफीर कर हिदेयु था। उसक- तब$युत उस समाँयु कफी- खरब था$ पुरन्त वाह माँर पु$ट किकयु जान क- कइ2 बत यु लिशकयुत नह$ कर रह था। समाँदेमियुक चिचाकिकत्सलोयु स क< ष्ण युदेवा क जिजालो अस्पुतलो एoबलोन्स द्वार लो जायु गेंयु था। माँ^ जिजालो अस्पुतलो नह$ गेंयु था।" सक्ष$ आइ2० डीब्लो ० 13 क० समाँ$र क माँर, थान बक्श न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क रकित्र माँ माँ^ एस०आइ2० सन$लो क माँर कितवार$ वा हमाँरह$ क० माँन$र्ष क माँर क सथा रकित्र गेंश्त माँ था किक रकित्र 01.30 स पु4न 2.00 क ब$चा थान स फीन आयु और हमाँ लोगें क थान पुर बलोयु गेंयु। थान पुर जाकर पु छन पुर हमाँ लोगें क बतयु किक किकस$ माँलोजिजामाँ क- तब$युत खरब ह गेंयु$ ह0, उसक अस्पुतलो जान ह0। माँलोजिजामाँ क नमाँ एस०एचा०ओ० सहब न देरगें जा$ क बतयु था किक उसक नमाँ क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ ह0 और युह $ बतयु था किक इसक पुट माँ देदे2 ह रह ह0। किफीर रकित्र दे बजा क लोगेंगें माँलोजिजामाँ क माँर एस०आइ2० सन$लो क माँर कितवार$ वा क० माँन$र्ष क माँर द्वार प्रथामिमाँक स्वास्थ्यु क न्द्र न4पुडीवा लो जायु गेंयु। माँ0न क< ष्ण युदेवा क शर$र पुर कइ2 चाट नह[ देख$। क< ष्ण युदेवा न एस कइ2 कथान नह$ किकयु था किक उसक सथा किकस$ पुलिलोसकमाँ@ न माँरपु$ट क- ह0। अस्पुतलो थान स माँत्र दे किक०माँ$० क- दूर$ पुर ह0। अस्पुतलो स डीक्टर सहब न क< ष्ण युदेवा क जिजालो अस्पुतलो रफीर कर हिदेयु था। उसक- तब$युत उस समाँयु कफी- खरब था$। पुरKत वाह माँरपु$ट किकयु जान क- कइ2 बत यु लिशकयुत नह$ कर रह था। समाँदेमियुक चिचाकिकत्सलोयु स क< ष्ण युदेवा क जिजालो अस्पुतलो एoबलोन्स द्वार लो जायु गेंयु था। माँ^ जिजालो अस्पुतलो नह$ गेंयु था। वाह$ स थान वापुस आ गेंयु था।" सक्ष$ आइ2० डीब्लो ० 14 उपुकिनर$क्षक सन$लो क माँर कितवार$, थान बदेश न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क थान बक्श पुर रकित्र अधि9कर$ क रूपु माँ माँर$ ड्यू ट$ था$। माँ^ अपुन हमाँरहिहयु क० माँन$र्ष क माँर वा क॰समाँ$र क माँर क सथा लोगेंगें 10.40 बजा थान स रवान हकर रकित्र गेंश्त माँ भ्रमाँण पुर था किक रकित्र 01.30 स पु4न 2.00 क ब$चा थान स फीन आयु और हमाँ लोगें क थान पुर बलोयु गेंयु। थान पुर जाकर पु छन पुर हमाँ लोगें क बतयु किक किकस$ माँलोजिजामाँ क- तब$युत खरब ह गेंयु$ ह0, उसक अस्पुतलो जान ह0। थानध्युक्ष माँहदेयु स पु छन पुर उन्हन बतयु माँलोजिजामाँ क नमाँ क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ ह0 और युह $ बतयु था किक इसक पुट माँ देदे2 ह रह ह0। किफीर तरKत ह$ माँ^ उपुकिनर$क्षक अपुन हमाँरहिहयु क सथा माँलोजिजामाँ क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क लोकर प्रथामिमाँक स्वास्था क न्द्र न4पुडीवा गेंयु। जाह पुर वाह स्वाKयु ह$ गेंड़ी$ स उतर कर अस्पुतलो क अKदेर गेंयु था तथा डीक्टर सहब द्वार उसक देख गेंयु वा उसक इलोजा किकयु गेंयु। माँ^न माँलोजिजामाँ क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क शर$र पुर कइ2 चाट वा खरचा नह$ देख था तथा उसन माँझेस वा माँर हमाँरहिहयु 8 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 स $ कइ2 माँरपु$ट, चाट खरचा क जिजाक्र नह$ किकयु था। डीक्टर सहब द्वार जाब उसस पु छ गेंयु त उसन बतयु था किक पुट माँ देदे2 ह रह ह0। युह बत माँ0न अस्पुतलो माँ उसक माँह स सन था। अस्पुतलो थान स कर$ब दे किकलोमाँ$टर क- दूर$ पुर ह0। डीक्टर सहब न वाह पुर माँ4जा दे किकस$ अन्यु व्यक्तिक्त स 108 नम्बर पुर फीन करवायु था तथा बतयु किक इसक- तब$युत खरब ह0, इसक जिजालो चिचाकिकत्सलोयु रफीर किकयु जा रह ह0। तरKत ह$ फीन करन पुर 108 एoबलोन्स स$०एचा०स$० न4पुडीवा पुर आयु$ वा क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क जिजालो चिचाकिकत्सलोयु जा4नपुर लोकर गेंयु$ था$। लोकिकन माँ^ थानध्युक्ष माँहदेयु क सर$ बत बतकर वापुस रकित्र गेंश्त भ्रमाँण हत थान क्षत्र चालो गेंयु था।" 8. The IW 16 Kansraj Yadav (an independent witness) has stated before the Judicial Magistrate on 11.02.2021 as under : "सक्ष$ आइ2॰डीब्लो ० 16 कK सरजा युदेवा न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "माँ^ चायु क- दूकन लोगेंत हूँ। हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 माँ माँ0 अपुन$ दूकन पुर था। दूकन क समाँन एस०ओ० बक्श क- गेंड़ी$ खड़ी$ था$। उस समाँयु लोगेंगें 03.30 बजा रह था। वाहK पुर 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो था। वाह स4र पुठाक क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क ब0ठाकर लोकर आयु और माँरू दूकन क समाँन आकर माँटरसइ2किकलो रक दे$। पु$छ स चान्द्रबदेन वा अजायु युदेवा माँटरसइ2किकलो स आयु। क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुलिलोसवालो न गेंड़ी$ माँ डीलो लिलोयु। अजायु वा चान्द्रबदेन न पुलिलोसवालो स पु छतछ क- युह हमाँ नह[ माँलो माँ ह0। क< ष्ण युदेवा स माँर$ दूकन क समाँन किकस$ न माँरपु$ट नह$ क- था$। वा लोगें उस लोकर वाहK स चालो गेंयु था। अगेंलो हिदेन माँझे पुत चालो किक क< ष्ण युदेवा क- माँ<त्यु ह गेंयु$ ह0। माँर समाँन क< ष्ण युदेवा स किकस$ न कइ2 माँरपु$ट नह$ क- था$। माँझे इसक अलोवा और कइ2 जानकर$ नह$ ह0।" 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: "सक्ष$ आइ2॰डीब्लो ० 2 श्री$माँत$ सत्ता न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "माँर त$न लोड़ीक था। बडी क नमाँ अजायु युदेवा, दूसर बट क नमाँ क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ तथा छट बट क प्रदे$पु युदेवा ह0। स4रवा पुKहिडीत माँर घर आयु था। तर$ख युदे नह$ ह0। बलो किक बक्श क देरगें जा$ क< ष्ण युदेवा क बलोयु ह0। 03.00 बजा सKयु क< ष्ण युदेवा क स4रवा पुKहिडीत अपुन$ गेंडी$ पुर ब0ठाकर लो गेंयु था। अजायु युदेवा वा गेंKवा क चान्द्रबदेन क माँ^ थान पुर जा$ था$, किक क्यु बत ह0 जा क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुलिलोस बलोयु$ ह0। किफीर रत माँ 08.00 बजा 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो जिजासमाँ क छ सदे$ वादे@ माँ था, माँर घर आयु और घर माँ तड़ी-फीडी करन लोगें। पुट$ क तलो तडीकर 60,000/- रूपुयु लो ट लिलोयु। माँ0न रकन चाह त माँझे घस$टकर बहर कर हिदेयु। पुलिलोस वालो लो टमाँर करक 60,000/- रूपुयु लो ट कर चालो गेंयु। रत माँ^ 12.30 बजा पुलिलोस वालो माँर लोड़ीक क< ष्ण युदेवा क जिजासक बहुत माँरपु$ट रख था क लोकर माँर घर आयु और कह किक डीढ लोख रुपुयु दे नह$ त तम्हर लोड़ीक क जान स माँर देगें। माँ0न कह किक माँ^ पु0स नह$ दे सकत$। किफीर पुलिलोस वालो माँर लोड़ीक क लोकर वामिपुस चालो गेंयु। अगेंलो हिदेन सबह 05.00 बजा पुत चालो किक क< ष्ण क- माँ<त्यु ह गेंयु$ ह0। माँर घर माँ माँर समाँन क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुलिलोस वालो न नह$ माँर था पुरKत वाह बर$ चाटिटलो था।" सक्ष$ आइ2० डीब्लो ० 3 अजायु क माँर युदेवा न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "माँ^ ए०स$० माँ0क किनक क ह0ल्पुर क रूपु माँ एक सलो स कमाँ कर रह हूँ। उसक पुहलो पुढत था। हमाँ त$न इ2 था। माँ<तक क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ माँKझेलो इ2 था। हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क समाँयु 03.00 बजा स4र पुठाक पुत्र जिजातन्द्र पुठाक बइ2क स आयु जाकिक क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुस आत जात था। माँ0न उसक आत हुए देख था। वा आकर बलो किक एस०ओ० सहब रडी पुर खड़ी ह0 और 9 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 तझेक बलो रह ह0। रडी घर स 150 माँ$टर दूर$ पुर ह0। क< ष्ण उसक- बइ2क पुर ब0ठाकर चालो गेंयु। माँ^ और चान्द्रबदेन उसक पु$छ-पु$छ बइ2क स गेंयु था। रडी पुर जाकर स4र बइ2क रक हिदेयु। जाह पुर पुलिलोस वालो था, जिजासमाँ स क छ वादे@9र$ नह[ था। रडी स क< ष्ण युदेवा क जाबरदेस्त$ ब0ठान लोगें त माँ0न किवार9 किकयु। त उन्हन कह किक माँ^ एस॰ओ॰जा$॰ स ह0 पु छतछ क लिलोए लो जा रह ह0। उस ट$माँ माँ एस०ओ० अजायु क माँर $ था। बकिक क लोगें क माँ^ नह[ पुहचानत। किफीर पुलिलोस वालो क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क गेंड़ी$ माँ ब0ठाकर लो गेंयु। यु घटन कK सरजा युदेवा जिजासक- रडी पुर चायु क- दुकन ह0 न $ देख$। माँ^ वापुस घर चालो आयु। घर आकर घटन क बर माँ लोगें क बतयु। कर$ब 04.30 बजा माँ^ तथा चान्द्रबदेन थान बक्श गेंयु। जाब हमाँ थान पुर गेंयु त देख किक क< ष्ण जामाँ$न पुर ब0ठा था। उसन हमाँक बतयु किक पुलिलोस वालो उसक माँर-पु$ट ह0। वाह कह रह था किक इ2 हमाँक बचा लो, पुलिलोस वालो बहुत माँर रह ह0। हमाँक पुलिलोस वालो न उसस मिमाँलोन नह$ हिदेयु और पुजार$ क उठाकर अKदेर लो गेंयु। हमाँ लोगें क गेंलो$ देकर तन क गें हिदेयु। वाहK स माँ0न बहर किनकलोकर एस०पु$० सहब क फीन करक तथा व्हटसएपु करक बतयु। पुरKत एस०पु$० सहब न सKतर्षजानक जावाब नह$ हिदेयु। माँर$ उनस फीन पुर बत हुइ2 था$। किफीर माँ^ घर चालो गेंयु। रत क 08.00 बजा क कर$ब 10-12 पुलिलोसवालो जिजासमाँ क छ वादे@9र$ नह[ था आयु और घर माँ घस गेंयु तथा देरवाजा पु$टन लोगें। माँ^ तथा माँर$ माँतजा$ न क< ष्ण युदेवा क बर माँ पु छ त उन लोगें न कह किक वा थान पुर ह0। किफीर पुलिलोसवालो न माँर छट इ2 क- पुत्न$ कमाँलो जा अKदेर क कमाँर माँ सइ2 था$ उसक जाबरदेस्त$ देरवाजा खलोवाकर हथा स पुकड़ीकर किनकलो हिदेयु। दे माँबइ2लो और माँटरसइ2किकलो जाबरदेस्त$ लो गेंयु। रत माँ पुन> 12.30 बजा 10-12 पुलिलोसवालो माँर इ2 क लोकर आयु जिजासमाँ एस०ओ० अजायु क माँर सिंसMह $ था। माँर इ2 र पु$ट रह था और चालो नह$ पु रह था। दे पुलिलोसवालो उसक पुकड़ी कर लोयु और बहर पुड़ी$ चारपुइ2 पुर डीलो हिदेयु। माँर इ2 जार जार स कह रह था किक जा $ पु0स ह इनक लोकर दे दे और हमाँक बचा लोगेंह$ त यु लोगें माँझे माँर डीलोगें। माँर$ माँतजा$ माँर इ2 क पुकड़ीकर रन लोगें$, कहन लोगें$ जा $ पु0स था वा त आपु लोगें पुहलो ह$ लो ट चाक ह किफीर एस०ओ० अजायु क माँर न कह किक सलो प्र9न$ लोडीगें, माँ^ इसक प्र9न$ लोड़ीत हूँ। किफीर एस०ओ० अजायु क माँर सिंसMह न कह किक अगेंर अपुन लोड़ीक क सह$ सलोमाँत देखन चाहत ह त डीढ लोख रुपुयु लोकर थान आओ नह$ त इस गेंलो$ माँर देगें। हमाँ रत माँ थान पुर नह$ गेंयु। सबह 06.00 06.30 बजा हल्लो हन लोगें किक क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क पुलिलोस वालो न जान स माँर हिदेयु। इसक बदे लोगेंगें 08.00 बजा एस०पु$० लिसट$ क आवास पुर गेंयु और उनक पु र$ बत बतयु$। एस०पु$० लिसट$ न हिदेलोश देकर कह किक एस$ कइ2 बत नह$ ह0 तम्हर इ2 जाल्दे$ छ ट जायुगें। एस०पु$० लिसट$ न एक देरगें क बलोयु जिजानक नमाँ रजाश युदेवा ह0 जा शयुदे सरपुतहK थान स ह0 बलोवायु। किफीर एस०पु$० लिसट$ अKदेर चालो गेंयु और एस०ओ० रजाश युदेवा हमाँक बहर लो गेंयु। माँझे बतयु किक तम्हर इ2 क- माँ<त्यु ह गेंयु$ ह0। वा बलो जा हन था वा ह गेंयु, उनक एस नह[ करन चाहिहए था। किफीर वा माँझे गेंड़ी$ माँ ब0ठाकर जाबरदेस्त$ सदे अस्पुतलो लो गेंयु। वाहK पुर 100-200 पुलिलोसवालो पुहलो स माँ4जा दे था। और तमाँमाँ लोगें $ था। बड़ी$ कहन सनन क बदे हमाँ तथा प्रमाँदे युदेवा क हमाँर इ2 क माँKह हिदेखयु। माँर इ2 क हथा कलो ह रह था। पु र$ पु$ठा कलो$ ह गेंयु$ था$। र$ढ क- हडीu डी$ क पुस ख न किनकलो रह था। किफीर हमाँ लोगें क बहर किनकलो हिदेयु। पुलिलोस वालो रिरपुट2 लिलोखन क त0युर नह[ था, जाब लोगें न देबवा बनयु त सKयु क समाँयु रिरपुट2 लिलोख$ गेंयु$। रिरपुट2 माँ0न लिलोखयु$ था$। जा देपुहर माँ 03.00 बजा पुलिलोसवालो रडी पुर स पुजार$ क उठा कर लो गेंयु था त उस समाँयु उस कइ2 नह$ माँर था। जाब हमाँ थान पुर गेंयु पुलिलोसवालो जा 4-5 क- सKख्यु माँ था डीण्डी वा बल्ट स माँर रह था। जाब रत माँ पुलिलोसवालो घर लोकर आयु था तब किकस$ पुलिलोसवालो न न नह$ माँर था। माँर$ माँतजा$ क प्लोन्धिस्टक क पुइ2पु माँर था। सब पुलिलोसवालो द्दी$-द्दी$ गेंलिलोयु दे रह था। माँर इ2 क कइ2 आपुरधि9क इकितहस नह$ था। वाह स$9-स$9 व्यक्तिक्त था। माँर इ2 क उठान माँ स4र पुठाक क पु र हथा ह0 पुरKत पुलिलोसवालो उसक खिखलोफी कइ2 कयु2वाह$ नह$ कर रह ह0। माँर इ2 पु ण2 रूपु स स्वास्था था, उस कइ2 किबमाँर$ नह$ था$। उसक- माँ<त्यु पुलिलोसवालो क माँरन क करण स हुइ2 ह0।" 10 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 सक्ष$ आइ2॰डीब्लो ० 4 प्रदे$पु युदेवा न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "हमाँ लोगें त$न इ2 था। जिजासमाँ माँ^ सबस छट हूँ। अजायु युदेवा सबस बडी, क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ ब$चा वालो इ2 था। माँ0 माँम्बइ2 माँ रहकर ए०स$० माँ0क किनक क कमाँ करत हूँ। माँर मिपुतजा$ $ माँम्बइ2 माँ रहकर गेंड़ी$ चालोत ह0। हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क माँर$ पुत्न$ कमाँलो युदेवा न फीन करक बतयु किक माँर इ2 क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस उठा लो गेंयु$ ह0। माँर पु छन पुर उसन बतयु किक थान बक्श क- पुलिलोस जिजास माँ एस०ओ० अजायु सिंसMह वा एस०ओ०जा$० क- ट$माँ रडी पुर स उठा कर लो गेंयु$ ह0। उसन बतयु किक स4र पुठाक उसक बलोकर लो गेंयु था। पुलिलोसवालो कह रह था किक पु छतछ करक छड़ी देगें और हमाँ लोगें किनश्चिंश्चाMत ह गेंयु। किफीर माँर$ पुत्न$ न फीन करक बतयु किक पुलिलोसवालो घर पुर आकर पु0स और घर क समाँन लो ट लो गें9 ह0, तब हमाँ घबर गेंयु और अन्यु लोगें स बतचा$त किकयु। पुरKत उन लोगें द्वार कइ2 सKतर्षजानक जावाब नह$ हिदेयु गेंयु। रत 12.30 क बदे माँर$ पुत्न$ द्वार पुन> फीन करक रत हुए बतयु गेंयु किक पुलिलोसवालो इ2यु क लोकर आयु था। क लो 10-12 क- सKख्यु माँ था। क छ वादे@ नह$ पुहन था। उसन बतयु किक पुलिलोसवालो ज्युदेमाँर हिदेयु ह0, जिजासस वाह चालो नह$ पु रह ह0। इ2यु र रह था किक जा $ पु0स ह0 देकर माँर$ जान बचा लो नह$ त यु लोगें माँझे जान स माँर देगें। एस०ओ० अजायु सिंसMह न द्दी$-द्दी$ गेंलिलोयुK दे$ और कह किक अगेंर पु0स नह$ देगें त सबह तर बट क- लोश मिमाँलोगें$। युह बत माँर$ पुत्न$ द्वार माँझे फीन करक बतयु$ गेंयु$ था$। सबह 06.00 बजा क 12 तर$ख क माँर$ पुत्न$ क फीन आयु किक पुलिलोसवालो न क< ष्ण युदेवा क माँर डीलो ह0 और सदेर अस्पुतलो माँ छड़ीकर चालो गेंयु ह0। हमाँ लोगें उन्ह देखन जा रह ह0। किफीर माँ^, माँर मिपुतजा$, माँर बडी पुपु क लोड़ीक किवानदे युदेवा फीलोइ2ट द्वार जा4नपुर आयु। जा4नपुर सदेर 07.00 बजा क ब$चा माँ पुहुचा। माँ0न अस्पुतलो सKयुकलो 06.30 और माँर पु र पुरिरवार न इ2 क शवा क देख था। इसक- कमाँर पुर वा आख, नक वा कन स ख न आ रह था। किफीर हमाँ लोगें क अस्पुतलो स हट हिदेयु गेंयु।" सक्ष$ आइ2॰डीब्लो ० 5 डी० माँन$र्ष क माँर क सरवान$ स$०एचा०स$० सजानगेंKजा (पुस्टमाँट2माँ कत2) न ब्युन किकयु ह0 किक- माँख्यु चिचाकिकत्सधि9कर$, जा4नपुर क आदेश क अनसर माँर$ ड्यू ट$ हिदेनKक 12.02.2021 क पुस्टमाँट2माँ हऊस, जा4नपुर लोगेंयु$ गेंयु$ था$। माँर अलोवा माँर पु0नलो माँ डी० शहिहदे अख्तर, स$०एचा०स$० माँहिडीयुहूँ वा डी०प्रवा$ण क माँर, स$०एचा०स$० रहट$ एoवा फीमाँ2लिसस्ट अवा9श क माँर, पुलिलोस लोइ2न अस्पुतलो माँ4जा दे था। हिदेनKक 12.02.2021 क ए०डी$०एमाँ० क आदेशनसर रकित्र 09.10 पु$०एमाँ० पुर क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क शवा किवाच्छेदे शरू किकयु गेंयु। शवा किवाच्छेदे क- कयु2वाह$ क- किवाहिडीयुग्राफी- शमाँ माँ4यु2 द्वार क- गेंयु$। शवा क क० अरकिवान्दे क माँर वा क० माँन$र्ष क माँर थान बक्श द्वार पुस्टमाँट2माँ हऊस लोयु गेंयु था। पुस्टमाँट2माँ रिरपुट2 पुर माँर पु0नलो द्वार किनम्न चाट पुयु$ गेंयु$- (1) Contusion of size 30 x 20 cm देन किनतम्ब पुर जाकिक लोलो र रKगें लिलोयु हुए था। (2) Contusion of size 15 x 08 cm लोगेंगें उपुर$ पु$ठा पुर देन तरफी कK 9 क पुस जाकिक लोलो र रKगें लिलोयु हुए था। (3) Contusion of size 10 x 08 cm लोगेंगें बयु जा पुर बहर तरफी था जाकिक न$लो रKगें लिलोए हुए था। उक्त त$न चाट क अलोवा अन्यु कइ2 जाहिहर चाट नह$ था$। कइ2 हड्डी$ $ ट ट$ नह$ था$। किकस$ 9रदेर हधिथायुर क- $ कइ2 चाट नह$ था$। उक्त चाट एस$ प्रक< त$ क- नह$ था$, जिजासमाँ किक किकस$ क- माँ<त्यु प्रयु> सम्व्य ह। 11 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 जाब शवा क किवाच्छेदे किकयु गेंयु त प्रथामाँत> छत$ खलोन पुर युह पुयु गेंयु किक देन फी फीड़ी माँ ख न र हुआ था। पुसलो$ माँ कइ2 हिदेक्तत नह$ था$। सKस नलो$ समाँन्यु था$। गेंदे2न माँ कइ2 हिदेक्कत नह$ था$। हृदेयु क दे चा0म्बर माँ ख न र था। हृदेयु क देहिहन चा0म्बर Ventricle' क- मिपुछलो$ हिदेवार पुर 2 x 1 cm क सफी दे 9ब्ब था। जा किक चिचाखिन्हत करत ह0 किक उक्त 9ब्ब MI (हिदेलो क दे4र) 'हृदेयुघत' हन क- वाजाह स सम्व्य ह0।" 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 सवा माँ, श्री$माँन जिजालोधि9कर$/ पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर किवार्षयु> माँ० अ० सK०- 38/2021 अन्तगें2त 9र-30, 394, 504 आइ2० पु$० स$० थान-बक्श, जिजालो-जा4नपुर माँ 161 Cr.P.C क बयुन क सम्बE9 माँ- हलोफीनमाँ मिमाँनजाकिनब अजायु पुत्र कितलोक9र$ उम्र त० 30 वार्ष2 स० माँ4०- चाकमिमाँजा2पुर, थान-बक्श, जिजालो-जा4नपुर हस्वा जा0लो ह0>- देफी-1 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँ^ उपुरक्त नमाँ वा पुत क माँ लो किनवास$ हूँ तथा माँर नमाँ वा बन्धिल्देयुत क कइ2 अन्यु व्यक्तिक्त माँर माँ4जा माँ नह$ ह0। देफी-2 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँकदेमाँ उपुरक्त माँ वादे$ हूँK। देफी-3 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ पुत्र कितलोक9र$ उ० त० 24 वार्ष2 स० माँ4 चाकमिमाँजा2पुर, थान-बक्श, जिजालो-जा4नपुर माँर छट इ2 था। देफी-4 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँर छट इ2 क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ क ऊपुर जानपुदे जा4नपुर क किकस$ $ थान माँ कइ2 माँकदेमाँ नह$ था क< ष्ण एक स$9-स9 व्यवाहर क शलो लोड़ीक था। और वाह प्र9न पुदे क लिलोयु त0युर$ कर रह था। देफी-5 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क समाँयु कर$ब 3 बजा हिदेन क- ह0। माँ^ वा माँर छट इ2 क< ष्ण और माँर मिमाँत्र चान्द्रबदेन युदेवा घर पुर ब0ठाकर बतचा$त कर रह था किक माँटर सइकिकलो स स4र पुठाक पुत्र जिजातन्द्र पुठाक स० माँ4०-लिसह$पुर, थान लोइन बजार, जिजालो-जा4नपुर क< ष्ण क घर पुर आयु तथा क< ष्ण स कह क- रडी पुर चालो बक्श S.O अजायु क माँर सिंसMह बलो रह ह0। तब क< ष्ण स4र पुठाक क- माँटर सइ किकलो पुर ब0ठाकर उसक सथा चालो गेंयु। देफी-6 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँ^ अजायु वा माँर मिमाँत्र चान्द्रबदेन क सथा उनक पु$छ-पु$छ माँन रडी पुर पुहुचा त स4र न माँटर सइकिकलो लो जाकर कK शरजा युदेवा क- दुकन क समाँन माँन रडी पुर रक हिदेयु। वाहK पुहलो स खड़ी S.O बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा क छ पुलिलोस वालो वाहK था क< ष्ण क जाबरदेस्त$ अपुन$ गेंड़ी$ माँ ब0ठाकर लोकर जान लोगें माँ^ वा चान्द्रबदेन न पुलिलोस वालो स पु छ क्यु लो जा रह ह0 त क छ पुलिलोस वालो बलो क- हमाँ लोगें S.O.G स ह0 पु छतछ क लिलोए लो जा रह ह0 स4र $ पुलिलोस वालो क- गेंड़ी$ क सथा-सथा अपुन$ माँटर सइकिकलो स गेंयु। देफी-7 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो क लो जात समाँयु अजायु वा कK शरजा युदेवा वा माँ^ तथा गेंवा वा अगेंलो-बगेंलो क तमाँमाँ लोगें न देख। देफी-8 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक क< ष्ण युदेवा क थान बक्श पुलिलोस लो जान क बदे माँ^ वा चान्द्रबदेन युदेवा $ थान बक्श गेंयु माँ^ वा माँर मिमाँत्र चान्द्रबदेन न देख माँर इ2 क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो 15 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 लोKकअपु माँ बन्दे किकयु था माँर इ2 र रह था। माँ^ वा चान्द्रबदेन न क< ष्ण स मिमाँलोन क प्रयुस किकयु त पुलिलोस वालो माँझे वा चान्द्रबदेन क गेंलो$-गेंफ्त देत हुए थान स गें हिदेयु। देफी-9 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक थान माँ पुलिलोस वालो द्वार माँर इ2 क< ष्ण क लो€कअपु माँ बन्दे करन पुर माँझे किवाश्वास ह गेंयु किक माँर इ2 क पुलिलोस वालो किकस$ फीजा@ माँकदेमाँ माँ चालोन कर देगें। देफी-10 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक अपुन छट इ2 क< ष्ण क फीजा@ माँकदेमाँ माँ फीK सन वा प्रण रक्ष क लिलोए श्री$माँन पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर क माँ4० नK०- 9454400280 पुर अपुन माँबइलो नK०- 9984669989 स दे बर फीन लोगेंगें 5.35 बजा शमाँ हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क फीन किकयु तथा सह$ जाबवा न मिमाँलोन पुर श्री$माँन पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर क माँबइलो वाटuसअपु पुर अपुन इ2 क बर माँ थान बक्श जाबरदेस्त$ उठा लो जान क बवात माँ0सजा $ किकयु था। जिजासक रिरकडी2 माँर पुस ह0। देफी-11 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क समाँयु रकित्र 8 बजा माँ^ अजायु युदेवा वा माँर$ पुत्न$ सन$त, माँर$ माँत सरस्वात$ देवा$, $ गेंहिड़ीयु, चाचार इ2 प्रमाँदे युदेवा ओसर माँ ब0ठाकर बतचा$त कर रह था। और हमाँर छट इ2 प्रदे$पु युदेवा क- पुत्न$ कमाँलो युदेवा क- तकिबयुत खरब हन क- वाजाह स वाह घर क अन्देर सइ2 था$। हमाँ सब पुरिरवारजान क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो किबन वाजाह क क्यु लोकर गेंयु इस$ किवार्षयु माँ बतचा$त कर रह था। त$ थान बक्श S.O अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो क छ वादे@ माँ क छ सदे वादे@ माँ माँर घर पुर आयु। और द्दी$ द्दी$ गेंलो$ देन लोगें। माँर वा पुरिरवार क पु छन पुर किक माँर इ2 कह ह0 त पुलिलोस वालो न बतयु किक तम्हर इ2 क< ष्ण थान माँ ह0। देफी-12 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँर वा पुरिरवार वालो क किवार9 करन पुर बन्दूक हिदेखकर चापु कर हिदेयु। और देरवाजा पु$टन लोगें। अन्देर माँर छट इ2 प्रदे$पु युदेवा क- पुत्न$ कमाँलो युदेवा शरगेंलो और देरवाजा जार-जार स पु$टन क- वाजाह स देरवाजा खलो। त उसक द्दी$-द्दी$ गेंलो$ देत हुए हथा पुकड़ीकर 9क्क देत हुए घर स बहर किनकलो हिदेयु। घर माँ घसकर बक्श क तलो तड़ीकर बक्श माँ रख 60 हजार रूपुयु जा माँ0न अपुन माँ4स सKतर्ष युदेवा पुत्र ज्वालो युदेवा स खत जा माँर रहन पुर था छ ड़ीन क लिलोए लिलोयु था। देफी-13 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक घर क अन्देर रख हुआ खन-पु$न फी क हिदेयु और 9माँकत हुए वा द्दी$-द्दी$ गेंलो$ देत हुए बलो किक अगेंर तमाँ लोगें हल्लो गेंल्लो करगें त तमाँ सबक माँरगें। और क< ष्ण क जान स माँर देगें। जात समाँयु घर पुर खड़ी$ अपुचा जिजासक नम्बर-UP 62/BF3621 $ उठा लो गेंयु। देफी-14 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक 11/12.02.2021 क रकित्र लोगेंगें 12.30 बजा वाह$ पुलिलोस वालो जा रकित्र 8 बजा आयु था वाह$ पुलिलोस वालो माँर इ2 क< ष्ण युदेवा क घस$टत हुए घर पुर लोयु त माँर इ2 ठा•क स खड़ी नह[ ह पु रह था। बहर पुड़ी$ चारपुइ2 पुर उस फी क हिदेयु। माँर इ2 जार-जार स करह रह था माँK-माँK माँझे बचा लो। उसक बदे पुलिलोस वालो माँर इ2 क बलो पुकड़ीकर चारपुइ2 स जामाँ$न पुर पुटक हिदेयु। और पुलिलोस वालो बलो सलो प्र9न$ लोड़ीगें त तझे उस लोयुक नह$ छडी गें। देफी-15 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँर वा पुरिरवार क पु छन पुर किक सहब माँर इ2 न क्यु गेंलोत$ क- ह0 जा आपु इस इतन माँर ह0 और हमाँ गेंर$ब लोगें क क्यु सत रह ह0। त S.O अजायु क माँर सिंसMह न गेंलो$ देत हुए कह किक चापु रह नह[ त तम्हर $ युह$ हलो करगें। और पु0स लोओ त$ तम्हर इ2 क छड़ीगें अगेंर पु0स नह[ देगें त तम्हर इ2 क- जान लो लोगें। हत्यु कर देगें। माँ^ वा माँर पु र पुरिरवार पुलिलोस वालो क समाँन हथा जाड़ीकर रन लोगें किक सहब माँर इ2 क छड़ी दे। लोकिकन द्दी$-द्दी$ सलो$ देत हुए माँर इ2 क घस$टत हुए लोकर चालो गेंयु। 16 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 देफी-18 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँझे अफीवाहन सबह 12.02.2021 क 8 बजा पुत चालो किक माँर इ2 क अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा S.O.G ट$माँ वा पुलिलोस वालो द्वार हत्यु कर दे$ गेंयु$। देफी-19 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँ^ उक्त स चान पुर क्षत्रधि9कर$ सदेर क युह गेंयु त क्षत्रधि9कर$ सदेर न थान पुर फीन कर पुत किकयु पुत करन क बर माँझे सदेर अस्पुतलो जा4नपुर लो गेंयु जाहK पुर माँर इ2 क शवा पुड़ी था। देफी-20 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक पुलिलोस वालो माँर इ2 क पुस्टमाँट2माँ करन वा शवा जालोन क देबवा बनन लोगें। माँ0न कह किक पुहलो माँर इ2 क- हत्यु क माँकदेमाँ पुलिलोस वालो पुर देजा2 किकयु जायु तब पुस्टमाँट2माँ हत लोश जा$ जायु। देफी-21 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक उक्त घटन क- स चान माँख्युमाँKत्र$ उ० प्र० सरकर क I.G.R.S क माँध्युमाँ तथा माँनवाधि9कर आयुगें क फी0 क्स क माँध्युमाँ स स चान हिदेयु वा अपुन पुरिरवार वालो क स चान हिदेयु। देफी 22 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक अगेंलो-बगेंलो गेंKवा क छ सम्न्त व्यक्तिक्तयु द्वार प्रदेश2न सदेर अस्पुतलो माँ किकयु गेंयु कफी- देबवा क बदे माँर इ2 क हत्यु क बवात माँकदेमाँ उपुरक्त देजा2 हुआ। देफी-23 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक उक्त अजायु क माँर सिंसMह थानध्युक्ष बक्श वा S.O.G ट$माँ वा पुलिलोस वालो क माँरन स पुलिलोस कस्टडी$ माँ माँर इ2 माँर गेंयु तथा झे ठा• कहन$ बनकर माँर$ इ2 क ऊपुर झे ठा माँकदेमाँ लिलोखकर घटन किक लिलोपु पुत$ पुलिलोस द्वार क- जा रह$ ह0। देफी-24 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक उक्त बत माँर 161 स$० आर० पु$० स$० क बयुन माँनत हुए सम्बन्धिE9त किवावाचाक क प्रमिर्षत करन क- क< पु कर। अत> श्री$माँन जा$ स अनर9 ह0 किक उक्त बयुन हलोफी- क माँर 161 स$०आर०पु$० स$० क बयुन क रूपु माँ देजा2 करन क- क< पु कर। Statements of Kanashraj Yadav समाँक्ष, श्री$माँन जिजालोधि9कर$ / पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर किवार्षयु>- माँ० अ० सK०- 38/2021 अन्तगें2त 9र-302, 394, 504, 452 I.P.C थान-बक्श, जिजालो- जा4नपुर माँ 161 Cr.P.C क बयुन क सम्बE9 माँ- हलोफीनमाँ मिमाँनजाकिनब कK शरजा युदेवा उ० त० 40 वार्ष2 पुत्र जालोE9र युदेवा ग्रामाँ- चाकमिमाँजा2पुर, थान- बक्श, जिजालो-जा4नपुर हस्ब जा0लो ह0>- देफी-1 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक उपुरक्त नमाँ पुत क स्थायु$ किनवास$ हूँK माँर$ दुकन माँन रडी पुर युदेवा जालोपुन, क< ष्ण डीर$ क नमाँ स ह0। देफी-2 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँर$ दुकन इलोहबदे रडी पुर ह0। हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 समाँयु लोगेंगें 3 बजा हिदेन माँर$ दुकन क समाँन S.O बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा कर$ब 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो दे गेंड़ी$ स खड़ी था त$ स4र पुठाक, क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ पुत्र कितलोक9र$ माँटर सइकिकलो स लोकर पुलिलोस वालो क पुस आयु और पु$छ स अजायु युदेवा, क< ष्ण क इ2 वा चान्द्रबदेन युदेवा $ आ गेंयु। देफी-3 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक अजायु युदेवा पुलिलोस वालो स क< ष्ण क लो जान क करण पु छ त पुलिलोस वालो बलो क- S.O.G स ह$ पु छतछ क लिलोए लो जा रह ह0। माँर समाँन ह$ S.O बक्श 17 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा S.O.G ट$माँ क पुलिलोस वालो द्वार क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क पुकड़ीकर लो गेंयु। देफी-4 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक 12.02.2021 क गेंवा क अफीवाहन पुत चालो किक क< ष्ण युदेवा क- पुलिलोस कस्टडी$ माँ माँ4त ह गेंयु$ ह0 लोश सदेर अस्पुतलो माँ पुड़ी$ ह0। देफी-5 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक क< ष्ण क- माँ4त पुलिलोस वालो क माँरन स आयु$ चाट क करण हुइ2 ह0। देफी-6 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक हलोफीनमाँ माँर किनजा$ ज्ञान माँ सचा वा सह$ ह0 न कइ2 बत झे ठा ह0 न चिछपुयु$ गेंयु$, इ2श्वार माँर$ माँदेदे कर। Statements of Chandrabadan Yadav सवा माँ, श्री$माँन जिजालोधि9कर$ / पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर किवार्षयु> माँ० अ० सK०-38/2021 अन्तगें2त 9र-302, 394, 504, 452.I.P.C थान-बक्श, जिजालो- जा4नपुर माँ 161 Cr.P.C क बयुन क सम्बE9 माँ- हलोफीनमाँ मिमाँनजाकिनब चान्द्रबदेन पुत्र बब रमाँ युदेवा उम्र त० 25 वार्ष2 स० माँ4०-चाकमाँलोनपुर, थान- बक्श, जिजालो-जा4नपुर हस्ब जा0लो ह0:- देफी-1 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँ^ उपुरक्त नमाँ वा पुत क माँ लो किनवास$ हूँK तथा माँर नमाँ वा बन्धिल्देयुत क कइ2 अन्यु व्यक्तिक्त माँर माँ4जा माँ नह$ ह0। देफी-2 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ माँर मिमाँत्र क इ2 था। देफी-3 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ माँर मिमाँत्र क छट इ2 था जानपुदे क किकस$ $ थान माँ कइ2 माँकदेमाँ नह$ था क< ष्ण एक स$9 सदे व्यवाहर क शलो लोड़ीक था और वा प्र9न पुदे क लिलोए त0युर$ कर रह था। देफी-4 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक हिदेनKक 11/2/2021 क समाँयु 2 बजा स अजायु क सथा उनक घर पुर था हिदेनKक 11/2/2021 क समाँयु कर$ब 3 बजा माँटरसइकिकलो स स4र पुठाक पुत्र जिजातन्द्र पुठाक स० माँ4० स$ह$पुर थान लोइन बजार जिजालो जा4नपुर क< ष्ण क घर पुर आयु तथा क< ष्ण स कह रडी पुर चालो बक्स एस० ओ० अजायु क माँर सिंसMह बलो रह ह^ क< ष्ण स4र पुठाक किक बइक पु चालो गेंयु। देफी-5 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँ^ वा अजायु, स4र पुठाक क मिपुछ मिपुछ कK शरजा युदेवा किक दुकन क समाँन माँन रडी पु गेंयु त माँ0न देख स4र न माँटरसइकिकलो लो जाकर कK शरजा युदेवा क दुकन क समाँन माँन रडी पु रक हिदेयु त वाहK पुहलो स खड़ी एस० ओ० बक्स अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा क छ पुलिलोस वालो था क< ष्ण क देबरदेन्धिस्त अपुन$ गेंड़ी$ लोकर जान लोगें माँ^ वा अजायु न पुलिलोस वालो स पुछ क्यु लोकर जा रह ह0 त क छ पुलिलोस वालो बलो किक हमाँ एस० ओ० जा$० स ह0 पु छतछ क लिलोए लो जा रह ह0 स4र पुठाक $ पुलिलोस वालो किक गेंड़ी$ क सथा सथा अपुन$ माँटरसइकिकलो स गेंयु। देफी-6 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो क लो जात समाँयु अजायु वा कK शरजा युदेवा वा माँ^ तथा गेंवा वा अगेंलो बगेंलो क तमाँमाँ लोगें न देख। देफी-7 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक क< ष्ण युदेवा क थान बक्स पुलिलोस लो जान क बदे माँ^ वा अजायु $ थान बक्स गेंयु माँ^ वा अजायु न देख क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो लोKकअपु माँ बन्दे किकयु था 18 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 क< ष्ण र रह था माँ^ वा अजायु न क< ष्ण स मिमाँलोन क प्रयुस किकयु त पुलिलोस वालो गेंलो$गेंप्त देत हुए थान स गें हिदेयु। देफी-8 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक पुलिलोस वालो द्वार माँर मिमाँत्र क इ2 क< ष्ण युदेवा क लोKकअपु माँ बन्दे करन पुर माँझे किवाश्वास ह गेंयु किक क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो किकस$ फीर्जिजाM माँकदेमाँ माँ चालोन कर देगें। देफी-9 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक क< ष्ण क फीर्जिजाM माँकदेमाँ माँ फीK सन वा प्रण रक्ष क लिलोए माँर मिमाँत्र अजायु न श्री$माँन पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर क माँ० नK०- 9454400280 पुर अपुन माँबइलो नK० 9984669989 स दे बर फीन लोगेंगें 5.35 बजा समाँ हिदेनKक 11/2/2021 क फीन किकयु तथा सह$ जाबवा न मिमाँलोन पुर श्री$माँन पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर क माँ० वाटuसपु पुर अपुन इ2 क बर थान बक्स जाबरदेस्त$ उठा लो जान क बवात माँ0सजा $ किकयु था जिजासक रिरकडी2 अजायु क पुस ह0। देफी-10 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक सबह पुत चालो पुलिलोस वालो एस० ओ० बक्स अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा एस० ओ० जा$० रत माँ क< ष्ण क घर आयु घर माँ घसकर 60 हजार रूपुयु वा माँटरसइकिकलो नK० यु ० पु$० 62 ब$० एफी० 3621 उठा लो गेंयु माँन करन पुर पुरिरवार वालो क द्दी$ द्दी$ गेंलो$ गेंप्त हिदेयु। देफी-11 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक सबह अफीवाहन पुत चालो किक क< ष्ण युदेवा किक पुलिलोस द्वार माँरन मिपुटन क वाजाह स उसक- माँ<त्यु ह गेंयु$। देफी-12 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक जाब माँ^ सदेर जा4नपुर पुहुKचा त क< ष्ण युदेवा किक लोश माँचा2र$ पुर पुड़ी$ था$ उसक शर$र पुर माँरन मिपुटन किक वाजाह स गेंम्$र चाट क कलो किनसन था जा माँ^न अपुन माँबइलो स किवाडी$यु रिरकडी2 किकयु जा माँर पुस ह0। देफी-13 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक क< ष्ण युदेवा किक माँ<त्यु पुलिलोस वालो क माँरन मिपुटन स आइ2 गेंम्$र चाट क करण थान क अन्देर हिह ह गेंयु$ था$। देफी-14 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक पुलिलोस वालो अपुन क बचान क लिलोए क< ष्ण युदेवा पुर झे„ठा माँकदेमाँ लोगें कर माँमाँलो किक लिलोपु पुत$ कर रह ह^। देफी-15 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक उक्त बत माँर 161 स$० आर० पु$० स$० क बयुन माँनत हुए सम्बन्धिE9त किवावाचाक क प्रमिर्षत करन किक क< पु कर। अत> श्री$माँन जा$ स अनर9 ह^ किक उक्त बयुन हलोफी- क माँर 161 स$० आर० पु$० स$० क बयुन क रूपु माँ देजा2 करन किक क< पु कर। Statements of Saraswati Devi सवा माँ, श्री$माँन जिजालोधि9कर$ / पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर किवार्षयु> माँ० अ० सK०-38/2021 अन्तगें2त 9र-302, 394, 504, 452, I.P.C थान-बक्श, जिजालो- जा4नपुर माँ 161 Cr.P.C क बयुन क सम्बE9 माँ- हलोफीनमाँ मिमाँनजाकिनब सरस्वात$ देवा$ पुत्न$ कितलोक9र$ उम्र त० 55 वार्ष2 स० माँ4०-चाकमिमाँजा2पुर, थान-बक्श, जिजालो-जा4नपुर हस्ब जा0लो ह0:- देफी-1 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक माँ^ उपुरक्त नमाँ वा पुत क- माँ लो किनवालिसन$ हूँK तथा माँर नमाँ वा वान्धिल्देयुत क कइ2 अन्यु माँहिहलो माँर माँ4जा माँ नह$ ह0। देफी-2 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ माँर लोड़ीक था। 19 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 देफी-3 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क समाँयु लोगेंगें 3.00 बजा कर$ब$ स4र पुठाक नमाँ क लोड़ीक माँटरसइ2किकलो स माँर घर पुर आयु क< ष्ण युदेवा स कह चालो तम्ह एस० ओ० बक्श बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह बलो रह ह^। माँन रडी पुर खड़ी ह0। जाब माँर लोड़ीक क< ष्ण स4र पुठाक गेंड़ी$ पु ब0ठाकर चालो गेंयु तब माँर बड़ी लोड़ीक अजायु वा चान्द्रबदेन $ क< ष्ण क पु$छ- पु$छ रडी पुर गेंयु था जाहK स पुलिलोस वालो माँर लोड़ीक क< ष्ण क अजायु वा चान्द्रबदेन क समाँन गेंड़ी$ माँ ब0ठाकर लोकर चालो गेंयु। देफी-4 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ माँर लोड़ीक क< ष्ण क लो जान क बदे हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 रकित्र 8.00 बजा माँ^ वा माँर पुरिरवार ओसर माँ ब0ठाकर बत चा$त कर रह था हमाँर$ छट$ बहु कमाँलो युदेवा क- तकिबयुत खरब हन क- वाजाह स घर क अन्देर सइ2 था$ किबन वाजाह क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो क्यु लोकर गेंयु इस$ किवार्षयु माँ बत चा$त कर रह था। त$ थान एस० ओ० अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो क छ वादे@ माँ क छ सदे वादे@ माँ माँर घर पुर आयु और द्दी$- द्दी$ गेंलो$ देन लोगें माँर वा माँर पुरिरवार क पुछन पुर क- माँर बट कह ह0 त पुलिलोस वालो न गेंलो$ देत हुए बलो तम्हर लोड़ीक थान माँ ह0। देफी-5 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक माँर वा पुरिरवार वालो क किवार9 करन पुर बन्दूक हिदेखकर चापुकर हिदेयु और देरवाजा जार जार स मिपुटन लोगें अन्देर माँर$ छट$ बहु कमाँलो शर-गेंलो और देरवाजा जार-जार स पु$टन क- वाजाह स देरवाजा खलो त उसक द्दी$-द्दी$ गेंलो$ देत हुए हथा पुकड़ीक 9क्क देत हुए घर स बहर किनकलो हिदेयु घर माँ घसकर बक्श क तलो तड़ीकर बक्श माँ रख हुआ 60 हजार रुपुयु किनकलो लिलोयु और घर क अन्देर रख हुआ खन पु$न फी क हिदेयु और 9माँकत हुए वा द्दी$ द्दी$ गेंलो$ देत हुए बलो क- अगेंर तमाँ लोगें हल्लो गेंल्लो करगें त तमाँ सब क $ माँरगें और तम्हर लोड़ीक क जान स माँर देगें। जात समाँयु घर पुर रख$ अपुचा$ माँटरसइ2किकलो यु ० पु$० 62 ब$० एफी० 3621 उठा लो गेंयु। देफी-6 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक पुन> 11/12.02.2021 रकित्र 12.30 बजा माँर घर पुर वाह$ पुलिलोस वालो जा रकित्र 8.00 बजा आयु था वाह$ पुलिलोस वालो माँर$ लोड़ीक क< ष्ण युदेवा क घस$टत हुए घर पुर लोयु त माँर लोड़ीक ठा•क स खड़ी नह[ ह पु रह था। दे पुलिलोस वालो पुकड़ी हुए था। बहर पुड़ी$ चारपुइ2 पुर उस फी क हिदेयु। माँर लोड़ीक जार-जार स करह रह था माँK, माँK माँझे बचा लो। पुलिलोस वालो माँझे बहुत माँर ह0 और माँर$ हत्यु कर देगें घर माँ जा क छ पु0स ह लोकर इन्ह दे दे और माँर$ जान बचा लो। उसक बदे पुलिलोस वालो माँर लोड़ीक क बलो पुकड़ी कर चारपुइ2 स जामाँ$न पुर पुटक हिदेयु। देफी-7 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक पुलिलोस वालो स पुछ… सहब माँर लोड़ीक क- क्यु गेंलोत$ ह0 जा आपु इस इतन माँर ह0 और हमाँ गेंर$ब लोगें क क्यु सत रह ह^। किफीर पुलिलोस वालो द्दी$-द्दी$ गेंलो$ देत हुए माँर लोड़ीक क घस$टत हुए लोकर चालो गेंयु। और पुलिलोस वालो न बलो पु0स लोआ त$ तम्हर लोड़ीक क छड़ीगें नह[ त जान स माँर देगें। देफी-8 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक पुलिलोस वालो एस० ओ० बक्श वा एस० ओ० जा$० ट$माँ क लोगें द्वार माँर बट क- बर$ तरह स माँर पु$ट गेंयु ह0। जाब माँर बट माँर गेंयु त उसक- लोश सदेर अस्पुतलो माँ लो जाकर रखकर गें गेंयु। युह बत हिदेनKक 12.02.2021 क- सबह गेंवा माँ अफीवाहन पुत चालो तब माँर बड़ी लोड़ीक अजायु स$० ओ० सदेर क युहK गेंयु वाहK स जानकर$ हुइ2 किक क< ष्ण क- लोश सदेर अस्पुतलो माँ ह0। हमाँ लोगें सदेर अस्पुतलो गेंयु माँर बट क- माँ<त शर$र माँरचार$ पुर पुड़ी था। देफी-9 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक माँर बट क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ क- माँ<त्यु पुलिलोस वालो क द्वार माँरन पु$टन स हुइ2। अब पुलिलोस वालो द्वार माँर बट क ऊपुर झे ठा माँकदेमाँ करक माँनगेंढ़न्त कहन$ बन रह ह0 पुलिलोस वालो द्वार लो$पु-पुत$ क- जा रह$ ह0। 20 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 देफी-10 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक हलोफीनमाँ माँर किनजा$ ज्ञान माँ सचा वा सह$ ह0 न कइ2 बत झे ठा ह0 न चिछपुयु$ गेंयु$, इ2श्वार माँर$ माँदेदे कर। 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 policejunpur@gmail.com 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. 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 माँझे बचा लो पुलिलोस वालो माँझे जान स माँर 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 द्वार बरबर करहन पुर पु छन पुर बतयु किक सहब आजा कर$ब 2.00 बजा देपुहर माँ ग्रामाँ किवारहदेपुर क पुस एक माँटर सइकिकलो स टक्कर लोगें गेंयु था। रहगें$र माँझे उसक सथा मिमाँलोकर माँझे कफी- माँर पु$ट था। जिजासक- वाजाह स माँर शर$र माँ जागेंह जागेंह चाट आयु$ ह0। जिजासक करण देदे2 ह रह ह0। किगेंरफ्तर$ क- स चान उसक- माँ क माँ4क पुर ह$ दे$ जा रह$ ह0। किकन्त गेंवाह$ पुर हस्तक्षर करन स माँन कर रह$ ह0। दे4रन किगेंरफ्तर$ वा बरमाँदेगें$ माँनवाधि9कर आयुगें वा 35 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 माँनवा$यु सवा:च्चा न्युयुलोयु क किनदे:श क पुलोन किकयु गेंयु अभियुक्त क युह क< त्यु 9र 392/411/414 देकिवा क अपुर9 ह0। अत> करण किगेंरफ्तर$ बतकर समाँयु कर$ब 22.25 बजा हिहरसत पुलिलोस माँ लिलोयु गेंयु फीदे2 माँ4क पुर टचा@ वा किबजालो$ क- रशन$ माँ लिलोखकर पुढ़कर स$ सम्बन्धिE9त क अलोमाँत बनवायु जा रह ह0। फीदे2 क- प्रकित अभियुक्त क दे$ जा रह$ ह0।" 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: "सवा माँ श्री$माँन पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर माँहदेयु सकिवानयु किनवादेन ह0 किक प्रथा@ अजायु क माँर युदेवा S/O कितलोक9र$ युदेवा ग्रामाँ पुकड़ी$ चाकमिमाँजा2पुर थान बक्श जिजालो जा4नपुर क किनवास$ हूँ घटन हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 समाँयु 3 बजा हिदेन माँ S.O.G. ट$माँ वा S.O. बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह माँयु हमाँरह$ पु र$ फीस2 क सथा माँर घर पुर आयु और माँर इ2 क< ष्ण क माँर युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ पुत्र कितलोक9र$ उम्र 24 वार्ष2 पुकड़ीकर थान लो गेंयु। जाबकिक माँर इ2 क किवारुद्ध कइ2 आपुरधि9क माँकदेमाँ जानपुदे क किकस$ थान माँ नह$ ह0। माँर इ2 व्यवाहर क शलो व्यक्तिक्त थान माँर इ2 क S.O.G. ट$माँ वा S.O बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह फीजा@ माँकदेमाँ माँ फी सन क किनयुत स थान माँ ब0ठायु था रकित्र 08.00 बजा S.O. बक्श माँयु हमाँरहिहयु वा पुलिलोस वालो 10 क- सKख्यु था$ आयु और घर माँ घसकर बक्स क तलो तड़ीकर 60,000 रुपुयु वा समाँन S.O. बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा पुलिलोस वालो उठा लो गेंयु। माँन करन पुर किक माँहिहलोओ क द्दी$ -2 गेंलिलोयु हिदेयु पुन> 12.30 बजा रकित्र माँ S.O.G. प्रर$ वा S.O. बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह माँयु हमाँरहिहयु बलोर 10 माँटर सइकिकलो स 10 स 12 पुलिलोस वालो क सथा माँर इ2 क माँर घर लोकर आयु माँर इ2 खड़ी नह[ ह रह था जार-जार चिचाल्लो रह था माँ- माँ माँझे बचा लो पुलिलोस वालो पुलिलोस वालो माँझे जान स माँर देगें। और घर पुर रख$ माँटर सइ किकलो $ उठा लो गेंयु। माँ^ थान पुर गेंयु माँझे पुलिलोस वालो मिमाँलोन नह[ हिदेयु। सबह स चान मिमाँलो$ किक पुलिलोस कस्टडी$ माँ माँर इ2 किक माँ4त ह गेंयु$ माँर इ2 क- हत्यु उपुरक्त पुलिलोस वालो द्वार क- गेंयु$ ह0। अत> श्री$माँन जा$ स अनर9 ह0 किक S.O. बक्श क आदेलिशत कर किक तत्कलो$न S.O. बक्श वा S.O.G. ट$माँ माँयु हमाँरह$यु क किवारुद्ध हत्यु वा लो ट क माँकदेमाँ देजा2 कर आवाश्युक कयु2वाह$ कर। प्रथा@ अजायु क माँर युदेवा S/O कितलोक9र$ युदेवा ग्रामाँ पुकड़ी$ चाकमिमाँजा2पुर थान बक्श जा4नपुर MO 9984669989 हस्तक्षर अजायु युदेवा। नट- उक्त तहर$र वा कयुमाँ$ ह० माँ० सरन्द्र क माँर द्वार बलो -बलोकर अक्षरश> कम्प्यु टर माँ फी-डी करवायु गेंयु।" 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 : "सक्ष$ आइ2० डीब्लो ० 12 क० माँन$र्ष क माँर, थान बक्श न ब्युन किकयु ह0 किक- "8. The IW 16 Kansraj Yadav (an independent witness) has stated before the Judicial Magistrate on 11.02.2021 as under : "सक्ष$ आइ2॰डीब्लो ० 16 कK सरजा युदेवा न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "माँ^ चायु क- दूकन लोगेंत हूँ। हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 माँ माँ0 अपुन$ दूकन पुर था। दूकन क समाँन एस०ओ० बक्श क- गेंड़ी$ खड़ी$ था$। उस समाँयु लोगेंगें 03.30 बजा रह था। वाहK पुर 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो था। वाह स4र पुठाक क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क ब0ठाकर लोकर आयु और माँरू दूकन क समाँन आकर माँटरसइ2किकलो रक दे$। पु$छ स चान्द्रबदेन वा अजायु युदेवा माँटरसइ2किकलो स आयु। क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुलिलोसवालो न गेंड़ी$ माँ डीलो लिलोयु। अजायु वा चान्द्रबदेन न पुलिलोसवालो स पु छतछ क- युह हमाँ नह[ माँलो माँ ह0। क< ष्ण युदेवा स माँर$ दूकन क समाँन किकस$ न माँरपु$ट नह$ क- था$। वा लोगें उस लोकर वाहK स चालो गेंयु था। अगेंलो हिदेन माँझे पुत चालो किक क< ष्ण युदेवा क- माँ<त्यु ह गेंयु$ ह0। माँर समाँन क< ष्ण युदेवा स किकस$ न कइ2 माँरपु$ट नह$ क- था$। माँझे इसक अलोवा और कइ2 जानकर$ नह$ ह0।" 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: "सक्ष$ आइ2॰डीब्लो ० 2 श्री$माँत$ सत्ता न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "माँर त$न लोड़ीक था। बडी क नमाँ अजायु युदेवा, दूसर बट क नमाँ क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ तथा छट बट क प्रदे$पु युदेवा ह0। स4रवा पुKहिडीत माँर घर आयु था। तर$ख युदे नह$ ह0। बलो किक बक्श क देरगें जा$ क< ष्ण युदेवा क बलोयु ह0। 03.00 बजा सKयु क< ष्ण युदेवा क स4रवा पुKहिडीत अपुन$ गेंडी$ पुर ब0ठाकर लो गेंयु था। अजायु युदेवा वा गेंKवा क चान्द्रबदेन क माँ^ थान पुर जा$ था$, किक क्यु बत ह0 जा क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुलिलोस बलोयु$ ह0। किफीर रत माँ 08.00 बजा 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो जिजासमाँ क छ सदे$ वादे@ माँ था, माँर घर आयु और घर माँ तड़ी-फीडी करन लोगें। पुट$ क तलो तडीकर 60,000/- रूपुयु लो ट लिलोयु। माँ0न रकन चाह त माँझे घस$टकर बहर कर हिदेयु। पुलिलोस वालो लो टमाँर करक 60,000/- रूपुयु लो ट कर चालो गेंयु। रत माँ^ 12.30 बजा पुलिलोस वालो माँर लोड़ीक क< ष्ण युदेवा क जिजासक बहुत माँरपु$ट रख था क लोकर माँर घर आयु और कह किक डीढ लोख रुपुयु दे नह$ त तम्हर लोड़ीक क जान स माँर देगें। माँ0न कह किक माँ^ पु0स नह$ दे सकत$। किफीर पुलिलोस वालो माँर लोड़ीक क लोकर वामिपुस चालो गेंयु। अगेंलो हिदेन सबह 05.00 बजा पुत चालो किक क< ष्ण क- माँ<त्यु ह गेंयु$ ह0। माँर घर माँ माँर समाँन क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुलिलोस वालो न नह$ माँर था पुरKत वाह बर$ चाटिटलो था।" हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क रकित्र गेंश्त माँ था। रकित्र 10.25 स रकित्र गेंश्त माँ ड्यू ट$ माँ था। माँ^ एस०आइ2० सन$लो क माँर कितवार$ क सथा था वा हमाँरह$ क० समाँ$र क माँर क सथा रकित्र गेंश्त क- ड्यू ट$ माँ था। रकित्र 01.30 स पु4न 2.00 क ब$चा थान स फीन आयु और हमाँ लोगें क थान पुर बलोयु गेंयु। थान पुर जाकर पु छन पुर हमाँ लोगें क बतयु किक किकस$ माँलोजिजामाँ क- तब$युत खरब ह गेंयु$ ह0, उसक अस्पुतलो जान ह0। माँलोजिजामाँ क नमाँ एस०एचा०ओ० सहब न देरगें जा$ क बतयु था किक उसक नमाँ क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ ह0 और युह $ बतयु था किक किक इसक पुट माँ देदे2 ह रह ह0। किफीर रकित्र 37 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 दे बजा क लोगेंगें माँ^ वा एस०आइ2० सन$लो क माँर कितवार$ वा क० समाँ$र क माँर द्वार माँलोजिजामाँ क प्रथामिमाँक स्वास्थ्यु क न्द्र न4पुड़ीवा लो जायु गेंयु। माँ^ क< ष्ण युदेवा क शर$र पुर कइ2 चाट नह[ देख। क< ष्ण युदेवा न एस कइ2 कथान नह$ किकयु था किक उसक सथा किकस$ पुलिलोसकमाँ@ न माँरपु$ट क- ह0। अस्पुतलो थान स लोगेंगें दे किक०माँ$० क- दूर$ पुर ह0। अस्पुतलो स डीक्टर सहब न क< ष्ण युदेवा क जिजालो अस्पुतलो रफीर कर हिदेयु था। उसक- तब$युत उस समाँयु कफी- खरब था$ पुरन्त वाह माँर पु$ट किकयु जान क- कइ2 बत यु लिशकयुत नह$ कर रह था। समाँदेमियुक चिचाकिकत्सलोयु स क< ष्ण युदेवा क जिजालो अस्पुतलो एoबलोन्स द्वार लो जायु गेंयु था। माँ^ जिजालो अस्पुतलो नह$ गेंयु था।" सक्ष$ आइ2० डीब्लो ० 13 क० समाँ$र क माँर, थान बक्श न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क रकित्र माँ माँ^ एस०आइ2० सन$लो क माँर कितवार$ वा हमाँरह$ क० माँन$र्ष क माँर क सथा रकित्र गेंश्त माँ था किक रकित्र 01.30 स पु4न 2.00 क ब$चा थान स फीन आयु और हमाँ लोगें क थान पुर बलोयु गेंयु। थान पुर जाकर पु छन पुर हमाँ लोगें क बतयु किक किकस$ माँलोजिजामाँ क- तब$युत खरब ह गेंयु$ ह0, उसक अस्पुतलो जान ह0। माँलोजिजामाँ क नमाँ एस०एचा०ओ० सहब न देरगें जा$ क बतयु था किक उसक नमाँ क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ ह0 और युह $ बतयु था किक इसक पुट माँ देदे2 ह रह ह0। किफीर रकित्र दे बजा क लोगेंगें माँलोजिजामाँ क माँर एस०आइ2० सन$लो क माँर कितवार$ वा क० माँन$र्ष क माँर द्वार प्रथामिमाँक स्वास्थ्यु क न्द्र न4पुडीवा लो जायु गेंयु। माँ0न क< ष्ण युदेवा क शर$र पुर कइ2 चाट नह[ देख$। क< ष्ण युदेवा न एस कइ2 कथान नह$ किकयु था किक उसक सथा किकस$ पुलिलोसकमाँ@ न माँरपु$ट क- ह0। अस्पुतलो थान स माँत्र दे किक०माँ$० क- दूर$ पुर ह0। अस्पुतलो स डीक्टर सहब न क< ष्ण युदेवा क जिजालो अस्पुतलो रफीर कर हिदेयु था। उसक- तब$युत उस समाँयु कफी- खरब था$। पुरKत वाह माँरपु$ट किकयु जान क- कइ2 बत यु लिशकयुत नह$ कर रह था। समाँदेमियुक चिचाकिकत्सलोयु स क< ष्ण युदेवा क जिजालो अस्पुतलो एoबलोन्स द्वार लो जायु गेंयु था। माँ^ जिजालो अस्पुतलो नह$ गेंयु था। वाह$ स थान वापुस आ गेंयु था।" सक्ष$ आइ2० डीब्लो ० 14 उपुकिनर$क्षक सन$लो क माँर कितवार$, थान बदेश न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क थान बक्श पुर रकित्र अधि9कर$ क रूपु माँ माँर$ ड्यू ट$ था$। माँ^ अपुन हमाँरहिहयु क० माँन$र्ष क माँर वा क॰समाँ$र क माँर क सथा लोगेंगें 10.40 बजा थान स रवान हकर रकित्र गेंश्त माँ भ्रमाँण पुर था किक रकित्र 01.30 स पु4न 2.00 क ब$चा थान स फीन आयु और हमाँ लोगें क थान पुर बलोयु गेंयु। थान पुर जाकर पु छन पुर हमाँ लोगें क बतयु किक किकस$ माँलोजिजामाँ क- तब$युत खरब ह गेंयु$ ह0, उसक अस्पुतलो जान ह0। थानध्युक्ष माँहदेयु स पु छन पुर उन्हन बतयु माँलोजिजामाँ क नमाँ क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ ह0 और युह $ बतयु था किक इसक पुट माँ देदे2 ह रह ह0। किफीर तरKत ह$ माँ^ उपुकिनर$क्षक अपुन हमाँरहिहयु क सथा माँलोजिजामाँ क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क लोकर प्रथामिमाँक स्वास्था क न्द्र न4पुडीवा गेंयु। जाह पुर वाह स्वाKयु ह$ गेंड़ी$ स उतर कर अस्पुतलो क अKदेर गेंयु था तथा डीक्टर सहब द्वार उसक देख गेंयु वा उसक इलोजा किकयु गेंयु। माँ^न माँलोजिजामाँ क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क शर$र पुर कइ2 चाट वा खरचा नह$ देख था तथा उसन माँझेस वा माँर हमाँरहिहयु स $ कइ2 माँरपु$ट, चाट खरचा क जिजाक्र नह$ किकयु था। डीक्टर सहब द्वार जाब उसस पु छ गेंयु त उसन बतयु था किक पुट माँ देदे2 ह रह ह0। युह बत माँ0न अस्पुतलो माँ उसक माँह स सन था। अस्पुतलो थान स कर$ब दे किकलोमाँ$टर क- दूर$ पुर ह0। डीक्टर सहब न वाह पुर माँ4जा दे किकस$ अन्यु व्यक्तिक्त स 108 नम्बर पुर फीन करवायु था तथा बतयु किक इसक- तब$युत खरब ह0, इसक जिजालो चिचाकिकत्सलोयु रफीर किकयु जा रह ह0। तरKत ह$ फीन करन पुर 108 एoबलोन्स स$०एचा०स$० न4पुडीवा पुर आयु$ वा क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क जिजालो चिचाकिकत्सलोयु जा4नपुर लोकर गेंयु$ था$। लोकिकन माँ^ थानध्युक्ष माँहदेयु क सर$ बत बतकर वापुस रकित्र गेंश्त भ्रमाँण हत थान क्षत्र चालो गेंयु 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 "सक्ष$ आइ2॰डीब्लो ० 16 कK सरजा युदेवा न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "माँ^ चायु क- दूकन लोगेंत हूँ। हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 माँ माँ0 अपुन$ दूकन पुर था। दूकन क समाँन एस०ओ० बक्श क- गेंड़ी$ खड़ी$ था$। उस समाँयु लोगेंगें 03.30 बजा रह था। वाहK पुर 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो था। वाह स4र पुठाक क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क ब0ठाकर लोकर आयु और माँरू दूकन क समाँन आकर माँटरसइ2किकलो रक दे$। पु$छ स चान्द्रबदेन वा अजायु युदेवा माँटरसइ2किकलो स आयु। क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुलिलोसवालो न गेंड़ी$ माँ डीलो लिलोयु। अजायु वा चान्द्रबदेन न पुलिलोसवालो स पु छतछ क- युह हमाँ नह[ माँलो माँ ह0। क< ष्ण युदेवा स माँर$ दूकन क समाँन किकस$ न माँरपु$ट नह$ क- था$। वा लोगें उस लोकर वाहK स चालो गेंयु था। अगेंलो हिदेन माँझे पुत चालो किक क< ष्ण युदेवा क- माँ<त्यु ह गेंयु$ ह0। माँर समाँन क< ष्ण युदेवा स किकस$ न कइ2 माँरपु$ट नह$ क- था$। माँझे इसक अलोवा और कइ2 जानकर$ नह$ ह0।" 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: "सक्ष$ आइ2॰डीब्लो ० 2 श्री$माँत$ सत्ता न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "माँर त$न लोड़ीक था। बडी क नमाँ अजायु युदेवा, दूसर बट क नमाँ क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ तथा छट बट क प्रदे$पु युदेवा ह0। स4रवा पुKहिडीत माँर घर आयु था। तर$ख युदे नह$ ह0। बलो किक बक्श क देरगें जा$ क< ष्ण युदेवा क बलोयु ह0। 03.00 बजा सKयु क< ष्ण युदेवा क स4रवा पुKहिडीत अपुन$ गेंडी$ पुर ब0ठाकर लो गेंयु था। अजायु युदेवा वा गेंKवा क चान्द्रबदेन क माँ^ थान पुर जा$ था$, किक क्यु बत ह0 जा क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुलिलोस बलोयु$ ह0। किफीर रत माँ 08.00 बजा 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो जिजासमाँ क छ सदे$ वादे@ माँ था, माँर घर आयु और घर माँ तड़ी-फीडी करन लोगें। पुट$ क तलो तडीकर 60,000/- रूपुयु लो ट लिलोयु। माँ0न रकन चाह त माँझे घस$टकर बहर कर हिदेयु। पुलिलोस वालो लो टमाँर करक 60,000/- रूपुयु लो ट कर चालो गेंयु। रत माँ^ 12.30 बजा पुलिलोस वालो माँर लोड़ीक क< ष्ण युदेवा क जिजासक बहुत माँरपु$ट रख था क लोकर माँर घर आयु और कह किक डीढ लोख रुपुयु दे नह$ त तम्हर लोड़ीक क जान स माँर देगें। माँ0न कह किक माँ^ पु0स नह$ दे सकत$। किफीर पुलिलोस वालो माँर लोड़ीक क लोकर वामिपुस चालो गेंयु। अगेंलो हिदेन सबह 05.00 बजा पुत चालो किक क< ष्ण क- माँ<त्यु ह गेंयु$ ह0। माँर घर माँ माँर समाँन क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुलिलोस वालो न नह$ माँर था पुरKत वाह बर$ चाटिटलो था।" सक्ष$ आइ2० डीब्लो ० 3 अजायु क माँर युदेवा न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "माँ^ ए०स$० माँ0क किनक क ह0ल्पुर क रूपु माँ एक सलो स कमाँ कर रह हूँ। उसक पुहलो पुढत था। हमाँ त$न इ2 था। माँ<तक क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ माँKझेलो इ2 था। हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क समाँयु 03.00 बजा स4र पुठाक पुत्र जिजातन्द्र पुठाक बइ2क स आयु जाकिक क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुस आत जात था। माँ0न उसक आत हुए देख था। वा आकर बलो किक एस०ओ० सहब रडी पुर खड़ी ह0 और तझेक बलो रह ह0। रडी घर स 150 माँ$टर दूर$ पुर ह0। क< ष्ण उसक- बइ2क पुर ब0ठाकर चालो गेंयु। माँ^ और चान्द्रबदेन उसक पु$छ-पु$छ बइ2क स गेंयु था। रडी पुर जाकर स4र बइ2क रक हिदेयु। जाह पुर पुलिलोस वालो था, जिजासमाँ स क छ वादे@9र$ नह[ था। रडी स क< ष्ण युदेवा क जाबरदेस्त$ ब0ठान लोगें त माँ0न किवार9 किकयु। त उन्हन कह किक माँ^ एस॰ओ॰जा$॰ स ह0 पु छतछ क लिलोए लो जा रह ह0। उस ट$माँ माँ एस०ओ० अजायु क माँर $ था। बकिक क लोगें क माँ^ नह[ पुहचानत। किफीर पुलिलोस वालो क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क गेंड़ी$ माँ ब0ठाकर लो गेंयु। यु घटन कK सरजा युदेवा जिजासक- रडी पुर चायु क- दुकन ह0 न $ देख$। माँ^ वापुस घर चालो आयु। घर आकर घटन क बर माँ लोगें क बतयु। कर$ब 04.30 बजा माँ^ तथा चान्द्रबदेन थान बक्श गेंयु। जाब हमाँ थान पुर गेंयु त देख किक क< ष्ण जामाँ$न पुर ब0ठा था। उसन हमाँक बतयु किक पुलिलोस वालो उसक माँर-पु$ट ह0। वाह कह रह था किक इ2 हमाँक बचा लो, पुलिलोस वालो बहुत माँर रह ह0। हमाँक पुलिलोस वालो न उसस मिमाँलोन नह$ हिदेयु और पुजार$ क 39 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 उठाकर अKदेर लो गेंयु। हमाँ लोगें क गेंलो$ देकर तन क गें हिदेयु। वाहK स माँ0न बहर किनकलोकर एस०पु$० सहब क फीन करक तथा व्हटसएपु करक बतयु। पुरKत एस०पु$० सहब न सKतर्षजानक जावाब नह$ हिदेयु। माँर$ उनस फीन पुर बत हुइ2 था$। किफीर माँ^ घर चालो गेंयु। रत क 08.00 बजा क कर$ब 10-12 पुलिलोसवालो जिजासमाँ क छ वादे@9र$ नह[ था आयु और घर माँ घस गेंयु तथा देरवाजा पु$टन लोगें। माँ^ तथा माँर$ माँतजा$ न क< ष्ण युदेवा क बर माँ पु छ त उन लोगें न कह किक वा थान पुर ह0। किफीर पुलिलोसवालो न माँर छट इ2 क- पुत्न$ कमाँलो जा अKदेर क कमाँर माँ सइ2 था$ उसक जाबरदेस्त$ देरवाजा खलोवाकर हथा स पुकड़ीकर किनकलो हिदेयु। दे माँबइ2लो और माँटरसइ2किकलो जाबरदेस्त$ लो गेंयु। रत माँ पुन> 12.30 बजा 10-12 पुलिलोसवालो माँर इ2 क लोकर आयु जिजासमाँ एस०ओ० अजायु क माँर सिंसMह $ था। माँर इ2 र पु$ट रह था और चालो नह$ पु रह था। दे पुलिलोसवालो उसक पुकड़ी कर लोयु और बहर पुड़ी$ चारपुइ2 पुर डीलो हिदेयु। माँर इ2 जार जार स कह रह था किक जा $ पु0स ह इनक लोकर दे दे और हमाँक बचा लोगेंह$ त यु लोगें माँझे माँर डीलोगें। माँर$ माँतजा$ माँर इ2 क पुकड़ीकर रन लोगें$, कहन लोगें$ जा $ पु0स था वा त आपु लोगें पुहलो ह$ लो ट चाक ह किफीर एस०ओ० अजायु क माँर न कह किक सलो प्र9न$ लोडीगें, माँ^ इसक प्र9न$ लोड़ीत हूँ। किफीर एस०ओ० अजायु क माँर सिंसMह न कह किक अगेंर अपुन लोड़ीक क सह$ सलोमाँत देखन चाहत ह त डीढ लोख रुपुयु लोकर थान आओ नह$ त इस गेंलो$ माँर देगें। हमाँ रत माँ थान पुर नह$ गेंयु। सबह 06.00 06.30 बजा हल्लो हन लोगें किक क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क पुलिलोस वालो न जान स माँर हिदेयु। इसक बदे लोगेंगें 08.00 बजा एस०पु$० लिसट$ क आवास पुर गेंयु और उनक पु र$ बत बतयु$। एस०पु$० लिसट$ न हिदेलोश देकर कह किक एस$ कइ2 बत नह$ ह0 तम्हर इ2 जाल्दे$ छ ट जायुगें। एस०पु$० लिसट$ न एक देरगें क बलोयु जिजानक नमाँ रजाश युदेवा ह0 जा शयुदे सरपुतहK थान स ह0 बलोवायु। किफीर एस०पु$० लिसट$ अKदेर चालो गेंयु और एस०ओ० रजाश युदेवा हमाँक बहर लो गेंयु। माँझे बतयु किक तम्हर इ2 क- माँ<त्यु ह गेंयु$ ह0। वा बलो जा हन था वा ह गेंयु, उनक एस नह[ करन चाहिहए था। किफीर वा माँझे गेंड़ी$ माँ ब0ठाकर जाबरदेस्त$ सदे अस्पुतलो लो गेंयु। वाहK पुर 100-200 पुलिलोसवालो पुहलो स माँ4जा दे था। और तमाँमाँ लोगें $ था। बड़ी$ कहन सनन क बदे हमाँ तथा प्रमाँदे युदेवा क हमाँर इ2 क माँKह हिदेखयु। माँर इ2 क हथा कलो ह रह था। पु र$ पु$ठा कलो$ ह गेंयु$ था$। र$ढ क- हडीu डी$ क पुस ख न किनकलो रह था। किफीर हमाँ लोगें क बहर किनकलो हिदेयु। पुलिलोस वालो रिरपुट2 लिलोखन क त0युर नह[ था, जाब लोगें न देबवा बनयु त सKयु क समाँयु रिरपुट2 लिलोख$ गेंयु$। रिरपुट2 माँ0न लिलोखयु$ था$। जा देपुहर माँ 03.00 बजा पुलिलोसवालो रडी पुर स पुजार$ क उठा कर लो गेंयु था त उस समाँयु उस कइ2 नह$ माँर था। जाब हमाँ थान पुर गेंयु पुलिलोसवालो जा 4-5 क- सKख्यु माँ था डीण्डी वा बल्ट स माँर रह था। जाब रत माँ पुलिलोसवालो घर लोकर आयु था तब किकस$ पुलिलोसवालो न न नह$ माँर था। माँर$ माँतजा$ क प्लोन्धिस्टक क पुइ2पु माँर था। सब पुलिलोसवालो द्दी$-द्दी$ गेंलिलोयु दे रह था। माँर इ2 क कइ2 आपुरधि9क इकितहस नह$ था। वाह स$9-स$9 व्यक्तिक्त था। माँर इ2 क उठान माँ स4र पुठाक क पु र हथा ह0 पुरKत पुलिलोसवालो उसक खिखलोफी कइ2 कयु2वाह$ नह$ कर रह ह0। माँर इ2 पु ण2 रूपु स स्वास्था था, उस कइ2 किबमाँर$ नह$ था$। उसक- माँ<त्यु पुलिलोसवालो क माँरन क करण स हुइ2 ह0।" सक्ष$ आइ2॰डीब्लो ० 4 प्रदे$पु युदेवा न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "हमाँ लोगें त$न इ2 था। जिजासमाँ माँ^ सबस छट हूँ। अजायु युदेवा सबस बडी, क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ ब$चा वालो इ2 था। माँ0 माँम्बइ2 माँ रहकर ए०स$० माँ0क किनक क कमाँ करत हूँ। माँर मिपुतजा$ $ माँम्बइ2 माँ रहकर गेंड़ी$ चालोत ह0। हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क माँर$ पुत्न$ कमाँलो युदेवा न फीन करक बतयु किक माँर इ2 क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस उठा लो गेंयु$ ह0। माँर पु छन पुर उसन बतयु किक थान बक्श क- पुलिलोस जिजास माँ एस०ओ० अजायु सिंसMह वा एस०ओ०जा$० क- ट$माँ रडी पुर स उठा कर लो गेंयु$ ह0। उसन बतयु किक स4र पुठाक उसक बलोकर लो गेंयु था। पुलिलोसवालो कह रह था किक पु छतछ करक छड़ी देगें और हमाँ लोगें किनश्चिंश्चाMत ह गेंयु। किफीर माँर$ पुत्न$ न फीन करक बतयु किक पुलिलोसवालो घर पुर आकर पु0स और घर क समाँन लो ट लो गें9 ह0, तब हमाँ घबर गेंयु और अन्यु लोगें स बतचा$त किकयु। पुरKत 40 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 उन लोगें द्वार कइ2 सKतर्षजानक जावाब नह$ हिदेयु गेंयु। रत 12.30 क बदे माँर$ पुत्न$ द्वार पुन> फीन करक रत हुए बतयु गेंयु किक पुलिलोसवालो इ2यु क लोकर आयु था। क लो 10-12 क- सKख्यु माँ था। क छ वादे@ नह$ पुहन था। उसन बतयु किक पुलिलोसवालो ज्युदेमाँर हिदेयु ह0, जिजासस वाह चालो नह$ पु रह ह0। इ2यु र रह था किक जा $ पु0स ह0 देकर माँर$ जान बचा लो नह$ त यु लोगें माँझे जान स माँर देगें। एस०ओ० अजायु सिंसMह न द्दी$-द्दी$ गेंलिलोयुK दे$ और कह किक अगेंर पु0स नह$ देगें त सबह तर बट क- लोश मिमाँलोगें$। युह बत माँर$ पुत्न$ द्वार माँझे फीन करक बतयु$ गेंयु$ था$। सबह 06.00 बजा क 12 तर$ख क माँर$ पुत्न$ क फीन आयु किक पुलिलोसवालो न क< ष्ण युदेवा क माँर डीलो ह0 और सदेर अस्पुतलो माँ छड़ीकर चालो गेंयु ह0। हमाँ लोगें उन्ह देखन जा रह ह0। किफीर माँ^, माँर मिपुतजा$, माँर बडी पुपु क लोड़ीक किवानदे युदेवा फीलोइ2ट द्वार जा4नपुर आयु। जा4नपुर सदेर 07.00 बजा क ब$चा माँ पुहुचा। माँ0न अस्पुतलो सKयुकलो 06.30 और माँर पु र पुरिरवार न इ2 क शवा क देख था। इसक- कमाँर पुर वा आख, नक वा कन स ख न आ रह था। किफीर हमाँ लोगें क अस्पुतलो स हट हिदेयु गेंयु।" सक्ष$ आइ2॰डीब्लो ० 5 डी० माँन$र्ष क माँर क सरवान$ स$०एचा०स$० सजानगेंKजा (पुस्टमाँट2माँ कत2) न ब्युन किकयु ह0 किक- माँख्यु चिचाकिकत्सधि9कर$, जा4नपुर क आदेश क अनसर माँर$ ड्यू ट$ हिदेनKक 12.02.2021 क पुस्टमाँट2माँ हऊस, जा4नपुर लोगेंयु$ गेंयु$ था$। माँर अलोवा माँर पु0नलो माँ डी० शहिहदे अख्तर, स$०एचा०स$० माँहिडीयुहूँ वा डी०प्रवा$ण क माँर, स$०एचा०स$० रहट$ एoवा फीमाँ2लिसस्ट अवा9श क माँर, पुलिलोस लोइ2न अस्पुतलो माँ4जा दे था। हिदेनKक 12.02.2021 क ए०डी$०एमाँ० क आदेशनसर रकित्र 09.10 पु$०एमाँ० पुर क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क शवा किवाच्छेदे शरू किकयु गेंयु। शवा किवाच्छेदे क- कयु2वाह$ क- किवाहिडीयुग्राफी- शमाँ माँ4यु2 द्वार क- गेंयु$। शवा क क० अरकिवान्दे क माँर वा क० माँन$र्ष क माँर थान बक्श द्वार पुस्टमाँट2माँ हऊस लोयु गेंयु था। पुस्टमाँट2माँ रिरपुट2 पुर माँर पु0नलो द्वार किनम्न चाट पुयु$ गेंयु$- (1) Contusion of size 30 x 20 cm देन किनतम्ब पुर जाकिक लोलो र रKगें लिलोयु हुए था। (2) Contusion of size 15 x 08 cm लोगेंगें उपुर$ पु$ठा पुर देन तरफी कK 9 क पुस जाकिक लोलो र रKगें लिलोयु हुए था। (3) Contusion of size 10 x 08 cm लोगेंगें बयु जा पुर बहर तरफी था जाकिक न$लो रKगें लिलोए हुए था। उक्त त$न चाट क अलोवा अन्यु कइ2 जाहिहर चाट नह$ था$। कइ2 हड्डी$ $ ट ट$ नह$ था$। किकस$ 9रदेर हधिथायुर क- $ कइ2 चाट नह$ था$। उक्त चाट एस$ प्रक< त$ क- नह$ था$, जिजासमाँ किक किकस$ क- माँ<त्यु प्रयु> सम्व्य ह। जाब शवा क किवाच्छेदे किकयु गेंयु त प्रथामाँत> छत$ खलोन पुर युह पुयु गेंयु किक देन फी फीड़ी माँ ख न र हुआ था। पुसलो$ माँ कइ2 हिदेक्तत नह$ था$। सKस नलो$ समाँन्यु था$। गेंदे2न माँ कइ2 हिदेक्कत नह$ था$। हृदेयु क दे चा0म्बर माँ ख न र था। हृदेयु क देहिहन चा0म्बर Ventricle' क- मिपुछलो$ हिदेवार पुर 2 x 1 cm क सफी दे 9ब्ब था। जा किक चिचाखिन्हत करत ह0 किक उक्त 9ब्ब MI (हिदेलो क दे4र) 'हृदेयुघत' हन क- वाजाह स सम्व्य ह0।" 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 सवा माँ, 44 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 श्री$माँन जिजालोधि9कर$/ पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर किवार्षयु> माँ० अ० सK०- 38/2021 अन्तगें2त 9र-30, 394, 504 आइ2० पु$० स$० थान-बक्श, जिजालो-जा4नपुर माँ 161 Cr.P.C क बयुन क सम्बE9 माँ- हलोफीनमाँ मिमाँनजाकिनब अजायु पुत्र कितलोक9र$ उम्र त० 30 वार्ष2 स० माँ4०- चाकमिमाँजा2पुर, थान-बक्श, जिजालो-जा4नपुर हस्वा जा0लो ह0>- देफी-1 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँ^ उपुरक्त नमाँ वा पुत क माँ लो किनवास$ हूँ तथा माँर नमाँ वा बन्धिल्देयुत क कइ2 अन्यु व्यक्तिक्त माँर माँ4जा माँ नह$ ह0। देफी-2 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँकदेमाँ उपुरक्त माँ वादे$ हूँK। देफी-3 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ पुत्र कितलोक9र$ उ० त० 24 वार्ष2 स० माँ4 चाकमिमाँजा2पुर, थान-बक्श, जिजालो-जा4नपुर माँर छट इ2 था। देफी-4 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँर छट इ2 क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ क ऊपुर जानपुदे जा4नपुर क किकस$ $ थान माँ कइ2 माँकदेमाँ नह$ था क< ष्ण एक स$9-स9 व्यवाहर क शलो लोड़ीक था। और वाह प्र9न पुदे क लिलोयु त0युर$ कर रह था। देफी-5 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क समाँयु कर$ब 3 बजा हिदेन क- ह0। माँ^ वा माँर छट इ2 क< ष्ण और माँर मिमाँत्र चान्द्रबदेन युदेवा घर पुर ब0ठाकर बतचा$त कर रह था किक माँटर सइकिकलो स स4र पुठाक पुत्र जिजातन्द्र पुठाक स० माँ4०-लिसह$पुर, थान लोइन बजार, जिजालो-जा4नपुर क< ष्ण क घर पुर आयु तथा क< ष्ण स कह क- रडी पुर चालो बक्श S.O अजायु क माँर सिंसMह बलो रह ह0। तब क< ष्ण स4र पुठाक क- माँटर सइ किकलो पुर ब0ठाकर उसक सथा चालो गेंयु। देफी-6 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँ^ अजायु वा माँर मिमाँत्र चान्द्रबदेन क सथा उनक पु$छ-पु$छ माँन रडी पुर पुहुचा त स4र न माँटर सइकिकलो लो जाकर कK शरजा युदेवा क- दुकन क समाँन माँन रडी पुर रक हिदेयु। वाहK पुहलो स खड़ी S.O बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा क छ पुलिलोस वालो वाहK था क< ष्ण क जाबरदेस्त$ अपुन$ गेंड़ी$ माँ ब0ठाकर लोकर जान लोगें माँ^ वा चान्द्रबदेन न पुलिलोस वालो स पु छ क्यु लो जा रह ह0 त क छ पुलिलोस वालो बलो क- हमाँ लोगें S.O.G स ह0 पु छतछ क लिलोए लो जा रह ह0 स4र $ पुलिलोस वालो क- गेंड़ी$ क सथा-सथा अपुन$ माँटर सइकिकलो स गेंयु। देफी-7 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो क लो जात समाँयु अजायु वा कK शरजा युदेवा वा माँ^ तथा गेंवा वा अगेंलो-बगेंलो क तमाँमाँ लोगें न देख। देफी-8 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक क< ष्ण युदेवा क थान बक्श पुलिलोस लो जान क बदे माँ^ वा चान्द्रबदेन युदेवा $ थान बक्श गेंयु माँ^ वा माँर मिमाँत्र चान्द्रबदेन न देख माँर इ2 क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो लोKकअपु माँ बन्दे किकयु था माँर इ2 र रह था। माँ^ वा चान्द्रबदेन न क< ष्ण स मिमाँलोन क प्रयुस किकयु त पुलिलोस वालो माँझे वा चान्द्रबदेन क गेंलो$-गेंफ्त देत हुए थान स गें हिदेयु। देफी-9 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक थान माँ पुलिलोस वालो द्वार माँर इ2 क< ष्ण क लो€कअपु माँ बन्दे करन पुर माँझे किवाश्वास ह गेंयु किक माँर इ2 क पुलिलोस वालो किकस$ फीजा@ माँकदेमाँ माँ चालोन कर देगें। देफी-10 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक अपुन छट इ2 क< ष्ण क फीजा@ माँकदेमाँ माँ फीK सन वा प्रण रक्ष क लिलोए श्री$माँन पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर क माँ4० नK०- 9454400280 पुर अपुन माँबइलो नK०- 9984669989 स दे बर फीन लोगेंगें 5.35 बजा शमाँ हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क फीन किकयु तथा सह$ जाबवा न मिमाँलोन पुर श्री$माँन पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर क माँबइलो वाटuसअपु पुर अपुन इ2 क बर माँ थान बक्श जाबरदेस्त$ उठा लो जान क बवात माँ0सजा $ किकयु था। जिजासक रिरकडी2 माँर पुस ह0। 45 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 देफी-11 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क समाँयु रकित्र 8 बजा माँ^ अजायु युदेवा वा माँर$ पुत्न$ सन$त, माँर$ माँत सरस्वात$ देवा$, $ गेंहिड़ीयु, चाचार इ2 प्रमाँदे युदेवा ओसर माँ ब0ठाकर बतचा$त कर रह था। और हमाँर छट इ2 प्रदे$पु युदेवा क- पुत्न$ कमाँलो युदेवा क- तकिबयुत खरब हन क- वाजाह स वाह घर क अन्देर सइ2 था$। हमाँ सब पुरिरवारजान क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो किबन वाजाह क क्यु लोकर गेंयु इस$ किवार्षयु माँ बतचा$त कर रह था। त$ थान बक्श S.O अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो क छ वादे@ माँ क छ सदे वादे@ माँ माँर घर पुर आयु। और द्दी$ द्दी$ गेंलो$ देन लोगें। माँर वा पुरिरवार क पु छन पुर किक माँर इ2 कह ह0 त पुलिलोस वालो न बतयु किक तम्हर इ2 क< ष्ण थान माँ ह0। देफी-12 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँर वा पुरिरवार वालो क किवार9 करन पुर बन्दूक हिदेखकर चापु कर हिदेयु। और देरवाजा पु$टन लोगें। अन्देर माँर छट इ2 प्रदे$पु युदेवा क- पुत्न$ कमाँलो युदेवा शरगेंलो और देरवाजा जार-जार स पु$टन क- वाजाह स देरवाजा खलो। त उसक द्दी$-द्दी$ गेंलो$ देत हुए हथा पुकड़ीकर 9क्क देत हुए घर स बहर किनकलो हिदेयु। घर माँ घसकर बक्श क तलो तड़ीकर बक्श माँ रख 60 हजार रूपुयु जा माँ0न अपुन माँ4स सKतर्ष युदेवा पुत्र ज्वालो युदेवा स खत जा माँर रहन पुर था छ ड़ीन क लिलोए लिलोयु था। देफी-13 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक घर क अन्देर रख हुआ खन-पु$न फी क हिदेयु और 9माँकत हुए वा द्दी$-द्दी$ गेंलो$ देत हुए बलो किक अगेंर तमाँ लोगें हल्लो गेंल्लो करगें त तमाँ सबक माँरगें। और क< ष्ण क जान स माँर देगें। जात समाँयु घर पुर खड़ी$ अपुचा जिजासक नम्बर-UP 62/BF3621 $ उठा लो गेंयु। देफी-14 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक 11/12.02.2021 क रकित्र लोगेंगें 12.30 बजा वाह$ पुलिलोस वालो जा रकित्र 8 बजा आयु था वाह$ पुलिलोस वालो माँर इ2 क< ष्ण युदेवा क घस$टत हुए घर पुर लोयु त माँर इ2 ठा•क स खड़ी नह[ ह पु रह था। बहर पुड़ी$ चारपुइ2 पुर उस फी क हिदेयु। माँर इ2 जार-जार स करह रह था माँK-माँK माँझे बचा लो। उसक बदे पुलिलोस वालो माँर इ2 क बलो पुकड़ीकर चारपुइ2 स जामाँ$न पुर पुटक हिदेयु। और पुलिलोस वालो बलो सलो प्र9न$ लोड़ीगें त तझे उस लोयुक नह$ छडी गें। देफी-15 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँर वा पुरिरवार क पु छन पुर किक सहब माँर इ2 न क्यु गेंलोत$ क- ह0 जा आपु इस इतन माँर ह0 और हमाँ गेंर$ब लोगें क क्यु सत रह ह0। त S.O अजायु क माँर सिंसMह न गेंलो$ देत हुए कह किक चापु रह नह[ त तम्हर $ युह$ हलो करगें। और पु0स लोओ त$ तम्हर इ2 क छड़ीगें अगेंर पु0स नह[ देगें त तम्हर इ2 क- जान लो लोगें। हत्यु कर देगें। माँ^ वा माँर पु र पुरिरवार पुलिलोस वालो क समाँन हथा जाड़ीकर रन लोगें किक सहब माँर इ2 क छड़ी दे। लोकिकन द्दी$-द्दी$ सलो$ देत हुए माँर इ2 क घस$टत हुए लोकर चालो गेंयु। देफी-18 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँझे अफीवाहन सबह 12.02.2021 क 8 बजा पुत चालो किक माँर इ2 क अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा S.O.G ट$माँ वा पुलिलोस वालो द्वार हत्यु कर दे$ गेंयु$। देफी-19 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँ^ उक्त स चान पुर क्षत्रधि9कर$ सदेर क युह गेंयु त क्षत्रधि9कर$ सदेर न थान पुर फीन कर पुत किकयु पुत करन क बर माँझे सदेर अस्पुतलो जा4नपुर लो गेंयु जाहK पुर माँर इ2 क शवा पुड़ी था। देफी-20 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक पुलिलोस वालो माँर इ2 क पुस्टमाँट2माँ करन वा शवा जालोन क देबवा बनन लोगें। माँ0न कह किक पुहलो माँर इ2 क- हत्यु क माँकदेमाँ पुलिलोस वालो पुर देजा2 किकयु जायु तब पुस्टमाँट2माँ हत लोश जा$ जायु। 46 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 देफी-21 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक उक्त घटन क- स चान माँख्युमाँKत्र$ उ० प्र० सरकर क I.G.R.S क माँध्युमाँ तथा माँनवाधि9कर आयुगें क फी0 क्स क माँध्युमाँ स स चान हिदेयु वा अपुन पुरिरवार वालो क स चान हिदेयु। देफी 22 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक अगेंलो-बगेंलो गेंKवा क छ सम्न्त व्यक्तिक्तयु द्वार प्रदेश2न सदेर अस्पुतलो माँ किकयु गेंयु कफी- देबवा क बदे माँर इ2 क हत्यु क बवात माँकदेमाँ उपुरक्त देजा2 हुआ। देफी-23 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक उक्त अजायु क माँर सिंसMह थानध्युक्ष बक्श वा S.O.G ट$माँ वा पुलिलोस वालो क माँरन स पुलिलोस कस्टडी$ माँ माँर इ2 माँर गेंयु तथा झे ठा• कहन$ बनकर माँर$ इ2 क ऊपुर झे ठा माँकदेमाँ लिलोखकर घटन किक लिलोपु पुत$ पुलिलोस द्वार क- जा रह$ ह0। देफी-24 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक उक्त बत माँर 161 स$० आर० पु$० स$० क बयुन माँनत हुए सम्बन्धिE9त किवावाचाक क प्रमिर्षत करन क- क< पु कर। अत> श्री$माँन जा$ स अनर9 ह0 किक उक्त बयुन हलोफी- क माँर 161 स$०आर०पु$० स$० क बयुन क रूपु माँ देजा2 करन क- क< पु कर। Statements of Kanashraj Yadav समाँक्ष, श्री$माँन जिजालोधि9कर$ / पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर किवार्षयु>- माँ० अ० सK०- 38/2021 अन्तगें2त 9र-302, 394, 504, 452 I.P.C थान-बक्श, जिजालो- जा4नपुर माँ 161 Cr.P.C क बयुन क सम्बE9 माँ- हलोफीनमाँ मिमाँनजाकिनब कK शरजा युदेवा उ० त० 40 वार्ष2 पुत्र जालोE9र युदेवा ग्रामाँ- चाकमिमाँजा2पुर, थान- बक्श, जिजालो-जा4नपुर हस्ब जा0लो ह0>- देफी-1 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक उपुरक्त नमाँ पुत क स्थायु$ किनवास$ हूँK माँर$ दुकन माँन रडी पुर युदेवा जालोपुन, क< ष्ण डीर$ क नमाँ स ह0। देफी-2 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँर$ दुकन इलोहबदे रडी पुर ह0। हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 समाँयु लोगेंगें 3 बजा हिदेन माँर$ दुकन क समाँन S.O बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा कर$ब 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो दे गेंड़ी$ स खड़ी था त$ स4र पुठाक, क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ पुत्र कितलोक9र$ माँटर सइकिकलो स लोकर पुलिलोस वालो क पुस आयु और पु$छ स अजायु युदेवा, क< ष्ण क इ2 वा चान्द्रबदेन युदेवा $ आ गेंयु। देफी-3 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक अजायु युदेवा पुलिलोस वालो स क< ष्ण क लो जान क करण पु छ त पुलिलोस वालो बलो क- S.O.G स ह$ पु छतछ क लिलोए लो जा रह ह0। माँर समाँन ह$ S.O बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा S.O.G ट$माँ क पुलिलोस वालो द्वार क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क पुकड़ीकर लो गेंयु। देफी-4 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक 12.02.2021 क गेंवा क अफीवाहन पुत चालो किक क< ष्ण युदेवा क- पुलिलोस कस्टडी$ माँ माँ4त ह गेंयु$ ह0 लोश सदेर अस्पुतलो माँ पुड़ी$ ह0। देफी-5 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक क< ष्ण क- माँ4त पुलिलोस वालो क माँरन स आयु$ चाट क करण हुइ2 ह0। देफी-6 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक हलोफीनमाँ माँर किनजा$ ज्ञान माँ सचा वा सह$ ह0 न कइ2 बत झे ठा ह0 न चिछपुयु$ गेंयु$, इ2श्वार माँर$ माँदेदे कर। Statements of Chandrabadan Yadav 47 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 सवा माँ, श्री$माँन जिजालोधि9कर$ / पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर किवार्षयु> माँ० अ० सK०-38/2021 अन्तगें2त 9र-302, 394, 504, 452.I.P.C थान-बक्श, जिजालो- जा4नपुर माँ 161 Cr.P.C क बयुन क सम्बE9 माँ- हलोफीनमाँ मिमाँनजाकिनब चान्द्रबदेन पुत्र बब रमाँ युदेवा उम्र त० 25 वार्ष2 स० माँ4०-चाकमाँलोनपुर, थान- बक्श, जिजालो-जा4नपुर हस्ब जा0लो ह0:- देफी-1 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँ^ उपुरक्त नमाँ वा पुत क माँ लो किनवास$ हूँK तथा माँर नमाँ वा बन्धिल्देयुत क कइ2 अन्यु व्यक्तिक्त माँर माँ4जा माँ नह$ ह0। देफी-2 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ माँर मिमाँत्र क इ2 था। देफी-3 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ माँर मिमाँत्र क छट इ2 था जानपुदे क किकस$ $ थान माँ कइ2 माँकदेमाँ नह$ था क< ष्ण एक स$9 सदे व्यवाहर क शलो लोड़ीक था और वा प्र9न पुदे क लिलोए त0युर$ कर रह था। देफी-4 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक हिदेनKक 11/2/2021 क समाँयु 2 बजा स अजायु क सथा उनक घर पुर था हिदेनKक 11/2/2021 क समाँयु कर$ब 3 बजा माँटरसइकिकलो स स4र पुठाक पुत्र जिजातन्द्र पुठाक स० माँ4० स$ह$पुर थान लोइन बजार जिजालो जा4नपुर क< ष्ण क घर पुर आयु तथा क< ष्ण स कह रडी पुर चालो बक्स एस० ओ० अजायु क माँर सिंसMह बलो रह ह^ क< ष्ण स4र पुठाक किक बइक पु चालो गेंयु। देफी-5 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँ^ वा अजायु, स4र पुठाक क मिपुछ मिपुछ कK शरजा युदेवा किक दुकन क समाँन माँन रडी पु गेंयु त माँ0न देख स4र न माँटरसइकिकलो लो जाकर कK शरजा युदेवा क दुकन क समाँन माँन रडी पु रक हिदेयु त वाहK पुहलो स खड़ी एस० ओ० बक्स अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा क छ पुलिलोस वालो था क< ष्ण क देबरदेन्धिस्त अपुन$ गेंड़ी$ लोकर जान लोगें माँ^ वा अजायु न पुलिलोस वालो स पुछ क्यु लोकर जा रह ह0 त क छ पुलिलोस वालो बलो किक हमाँ एस० ओ० जा$० स ह0 पु छतछ क लिलोए लो जा रह ह0 स4र पुठाक $ पुलिलोस वालो किक गेंड़ी$ क सथा सथा अपुन$ माँटरसइकिकलो स गेंयु। देफी-6 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो क लो जात समाँयु अजायु वा कK शरजा युदेवा वा माँ^ तथा गेंवा वा अगेंलो बगेंलो क तमाँमाँ लोगें न देख। देफी-7 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक क< ष्ण युदेवा क थान बक्स पुलिलोस लो जान क बदे माँ^ वा अजायु $ थान बक्स गेंयु माँ^ वा अजायु न देख क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो लोKकअपु माँ बन्दे किकयु था क< ष्ण र रह था माँ^ वा अजायु न क< ष्ण स मिमाँलोन क प्रयुस किकयु त पुलिलोस वालो गेंलो$गेंप्त देत हुए थान स गें हिदेयु। देफी-8 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक पुलिलोस वालो द्वार माँर मिमाँत्र क इ2 क< ष्ण युदेवा क लोKकअपु माँ बन्दे करन पुर माँझे किवाश्वास ह गेंयु किक क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो किकस$ फीर्जिजाM माँकदेमाँ माँ चालोन कर देगें। देफी-9 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक क< ष्ण क फीर्जिजाM माँकदेमाँ माँ फीK सन वा प्रण रक्ष क लिलोए माँर मिमाँत्र अजायु न श्री$माँन पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर क माँ० नK०- 9454400280 पुर अपुन माँबइलो नK० 9984669989 स दे बर फीन लोगेंगें 5.35 बजा समाँ हिदेनKक 11/2/2021 क फीन किकयु तथा सह$ जाबवा न मिमाँलोन पुर श्री$माँन पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर क माँ० वाटuसपु पुर अपुन इ2 क बर थान बक्स जाबरदेस्त$ उठा लो जान क बवात माँ0सजा $ किकयु था जिजासक रिरकडी2 अजायु क पुस ह0। 48 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 देफी-10 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक सबह पुत चालो पुलिलोस वालो एस० ओ० बक्स अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा एस० ओ० जा$० रत माँ क< ष्ण क घर आयु घर माँ घसकर 60 हजार रूपुयु वा माँटरसइकिकलो नK० यु ० पु$० 62 ब$० एफी० 3621 उठा लो गेंयु माँन करन पुर पुरिरवार वालो क द्दी$ द्दी$ गेंलो$ गेंप्त हिदेयु। देफी-11 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक सबह अफीवाहन पुत चालो किक क< ष्ण युदेवा किक पुलिलोस द्वार माँरन मिपुटन क वाजाह स उसक- माँ<त्यु ह गेंयु$। देफी-12 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक जाब माँ^ सदेर जा4नपुर पुहुKचा त क< ष्ण युदेवा किक लोश माँचा2र$ पुर पुड़ी$ था$ उसक शर$र पुर माँरन मिपुटन किक वाजाह स गेंम्$र चाट क कलो किनसन था जा माँ^न अपुन माँबइलो स किवाडी$यु रिरकडी2 किकयु जा माँर पुस ह0। देफी-13 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक क< ष्ण युदेवा किक माँ<त्यु पुलिलोस वालो क माँरन मिपुटन स आइ2 गेंम्$र चाट क करण थान क अन्देर हिह ह गेंयु$ था$। देफी-14 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक पुलिलोस वालो अपुन क बचान क लिलोए क< ष्ण युदेवा पुर झे„ठा माँकदेमाँ लोगें कर माँमाँलो किक लिलोपु पुत$ कर रह ह^। देफी-15 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक उक्त बत माँर 161 स$० आर० पु$० स$० क बयुन माँनत हुए सम्बन्धिE9त किवावाचाक क प्रमिर्षत करन किक क< पु कर। अत> श्री$माँन जा$ स अनर9 ह^ किक उक्त बयुन हलोफी- क माँर 161 स$० आर० पु$० स$० क बयुन क रूपु माँ देजा2 करन किक क< पु कर। Statements of Saraswati Devi सवा माँ, श्री$माँन जिजालोधि9कर$ / पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर किवार्षयु> माँ० अ० सK०-38/2021 अन्तगें2त 9र-302, 394, 504, 452, I.P.C थान-बक्श, जिजालो- जा4नपुर माँ 161 Cr.P.C क बयुन क सम्बE9 माँ- हलोफीनमाँ मिमाँनजाकिनब सरस्वात$ देवा$ पुत्न$ कितलोक9र$ उम्र त० 55 वार्ष2 स० माँ4०-चाकमिमाँजा2पुर, थान-बक्श, जिजालो-जा4नपुर हस्ब जा0लो ह0:- देफी-1 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक माँ^ उपुरक्त नमाँ वा पुत क- माँ लो किनवालिसन$ हूँK तथा माँर नमाँ वा वान्धिल्देयुत क कइ2 अन्यु माँहिहलो माँर माँ4जा माँ नह$ ह0। देफी-2 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ माँर लोड़ीक था। देफी-3 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क समाँयु लोगेंगें 3.00 बजा कर$ब$ स4र पुठाक नमाँ क लोड़ीक माँटरसइ2किकलो स माँर घर पुर आयु क< ष्ण युदेवा स कह चालो तम्ह एस० ओ० बक्श बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह बलो रह ह^। माँन रडी पुर खड़ी ह0। जाब माँर लोड़ीक क< ष्ण स4र पुठाक गेंड़ी$ पु ब0ठाकर चालो गेंयु तब माँर बड़ी लोड़ीक अजायु वा चान्द्रबदेन $ क< ष्ण क पु$छ- पु$छ रडी पुर गेंयु था जाहK स पुलिलोस वालो माँर लोड़ीक क< ष्ण क अजायु वा चान्द्रबदेन क समाँन गेंड़ी$ माँ ब0ठाकर लोकर चालो गेंयु। देफी-4 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ माँर लोड़ीक क< ष्ण क लो जान क बदे हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 रकित्र 8.00 बजा माँ^ वा माँर पुरिरवार ओसर माँ ब0ठाकर बत चा$त कर रह था हमाँर$ छट$ बहु कमाँलो युदेवा क- तकिबयुत खरब हन क- वाजाह स घर क अन्देर सइ2 था$ किबन वाजाह क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो क्यु लोकर गेंयु इस$ किवार्षयु माँ बत चा$त कर रह था। त$ थान एस० ओ० अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा 10-12 पुलिलोस 49 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 वालो क छ वादे@ माँ क छ सदे वादे@ माँ माँर घर पुर आयु और द्दी$- द्दी$ गेंलो$ देन लोगें माँर वा माँर पुरिरवार क पुछन पुर क- माँर बट कह ह0 त पुलिलोस वालो न गेंलो$ देत हुए बलो तम्हर लोड़ीक थान माँ ह0। देफी-5 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक माँर वा पुरिरवार वालो क किवार9 करन पुर बन्दूक हिदेखकर चापुकर हिदेयु और देरवाजा जार जार स मिपुटन लोगें अन्देर माँर$ छट$ बहु कमाँलो शर-गेंलो और देरवाजा जार-जार स पु$टन क- वाजाह स देरवाजा खलो त उसक द्दी$-द्दी$ गेंलो$ देत हुए हथा पुकड़ीक 9क्क देत हुए घर स बहर किनकलो हिदेयु घर माँ घसकर बक्श क तलो तड़ीकर बक्श माँ रख हुआ 60 हजार रुपुयु किनकलो लिलोयु और घर क अन्देर रख हुआ खन पु$न फी क हिदेयु और 9माँकत हुए वा द्दी$ द्दी$ गेंलो$ देत हुए बलो क- अगेंर तमाँ लोगें हल्लो गेंल्लो करगें त तमाँ सब क $ माँरगें और तम्हर लोड़ीक क जान स माँर देगें। जात समाँयु घर पुर रख$ अपुचा$ माँटरसइ2किकलो यु ० पु$० 62 ब$० एफी० 3621 उठा लो गेंयु। देफी-6 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक पुन> 11/12.02.2021 रकित्र 12.30 बजा माँर घर पुर वाह$ पुलिलोस वालो जा रकित्र 8.00 बजा आयु था वाह$ पुलिलोस वालो माँर$ लोड़ीक क< ष्ण युदेवा क घस$टत हुए घर पुर लोयु त माँर लोड़ीक ठा•क स खड़ी नह[ ह पु रह था। दे पुलिलोस वालो पुकड़ी हुए था। बहर पुड़ी$ चारपुइ2 पुर उस फी क हिदेयु। माँर लोड़ीक जार-जार स करह रह था माँK, माँK माँझे बचा लो। पुलिलोस वालो माँझे बहुत माँर ह0 और माँर$ हत्यु कर देगें घर माँ जा क छ पु0स ह लोकर इन्ह दे दे और माँर$ जान बचा लो। उसक बदे पुलिलोस वालो माँर लोड़ीक क बलो पुकड़ी कर चारपुइ2 स जामाँ$न पुर पुटक हिदेयु। देफी-7 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक पुलिलोस वालो स पुछ… सहब माँर लोड़ीक क- क्यु गेंलोत$ ह0 जा आपु इस इतन माँर ह0 और हमाँ गेंर$ब लोगें क क्यु सत रह ह^। किफीर पुलिलोस वालो द्दी$-द्दी$ गेंलो$ देत हुए माँर लोड़ीक क घस$टत हुए लोकर चालो गेंयु। और पुलिलोस वालो न बलो पु0स लोआ त$ तम्हर लोड़ीक क छड़ीगें नह[ त जान स माँर देगें। देफी-8 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक पुलिलोस वालो एस० ओ० बक्श वा एस० ओ० जा$० ट$माँ क लोगें द्वार माँर बट क- बर$ तरह स माँर पु$ट गेंयु ह0। जाब माँर बट माँर गेंयु त उसक- लोश सदेर अस्पुतलो माँ लो जाकर रखकर गें गेंयु। युह बत हिदेनKक 12.02.2021 क- सबह गेंवा माँ अफीवाहन पुत चालो तब माँर बड़ी लोड़ीक अजायु स$० ओ० सदेर क युहK गेंयु वाहK स जानकर$ हुइ2 किक क< ष्ण क- लोश सदेर अस्पुतलो माँ ह0। हमाँ लोगें सदेर अस्पुतलो गेंयु माँर बट क- माँ<त शर$र माँरचार$ पुर पुड़ी था। देफी-9 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक माँर बट क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ क- माँ<त्यु पुलिलोस वालो क द्वार माँरन पु$टन स हुइ2। अब पुलिलोस वालो द्वार माँर बट क ऊपुर झे ठा माँकदेमाँ करक माँनगेंढ़न्त कहन$ बन रह ह0 पुलिलोस वालो द्वार लो$पु-पुत$ क- जा रह$ ह0। देफी-10 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक हलोफीनमाँ माँर किनजा$ ज्ञान माँ सचा वा सह$ ह0 न कइ2 बत झे ठा ह0 न चिछपुयु$ गेंयु$, इ2श्वार माँर$ माँदेदे कर। 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 policejunpur@gmail.com 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 माँझे बचा लो पुलिलोस वालो माँझे जान स माँर 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 द्वार बरबर करहन पुर पु छन पुर बतयु किक सहब आजा कर$ब 2.00 बजा देपुहर माँ ग्रामाँ किवारहदेपुर क पुस एक माँटर सइकिकलो स टक्कर लोगें गेंयु था। रहगें$र माँझे उसक सथा मिमाँलोकर माँझे कफी- माँर पु$ट था। जिजासक- वाजाह स माँर शर$र माँ जागेंह जागेंह चाट आयु$ ह0। जिजासक करण देदे2 ह रह ह0। किगेंरफ्तर$ क- स चान उसक- माँ क माँ4क पुर ह$ दे$ जा रह$ ह0। किकन्त गेंवाह$ पुर हस्तक्षर करन स माँन कर रह$ ह0। दे4रन किगेंरफ्तर$ वा बरमाँदेगें$ माँनवाधि9कर आयुगें वा माँनवा$यु सवा:च्चा न्युयुलोयु क किनदे:श क पुलोन किकयु गेंयु अभियुक्त क युह क< त्यु 9र 392/411/414 देकिवा क अपुर9 ह0। अत> करण किगेंरफ्तर$ बतकर समाँयु कर$ब 22.25 बजा हिहरसत पुलिलोस माँ लिलोयु गेंयु फीदे2 माँ4क पुर टचा@ वा किबजालो$ क- रशन$ माँ लिलोखकर पुढ़कर स$ सम्बन्धिE9त क अलोमाँत बनवायु जा रह ह0। फीदे2 क- प्रकित अभियुक्त क दे$ जा रह$ ह0।" 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: "सवा माँ श्री$माँन पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर माँहदेयु सकिवानयु किनवादेन ह0 किक प्रथा@ अजायु क माँर युदेवा S/O कितलोक9र$ युदेवा ग्रामाँ पुकड़ी$ चाकमिमाँजा2पुर थान बक्श जिजालो जा4नपुर क किनवास$ हूँ घटन हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 समाँयु 3 बजा हिदेन माँ S.O.G. ट$माँ वा S.O. बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह माँयु हमाँरह$ पु र$ फीस2 क सथा माँर घर पुर आयु और माँर इ2 क< ष्ण क माँर युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ पुत्र कितलोक9र$ उम्र 24 वार्ष2 पुकड़ीकर थान लो गेंयु। जाबकिक माँर इ2 क किवारुद्ध कइ2 आपुरधि9क माँकदेमाँ जानपुदे क किकस$ थान माँ नह$ ह0। माँर इ2 व्यवाहर क शलो व्यक्तिक्त थान माँर इ2 क S.O.G. ट$माँ वा S.O बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह फीजा@ माँकदेमाँ माँ फी सन क किनयुत स थान माँ ब0ठायु था रकित्र 08.00 बजा S.O. बक्श माँयु हमाँरहिहयु वा पुलिलोस वालो 10 क- सKख्यु था$ आयु और घर माँ घसकर बक्स क तलो तड़ीकर 60,000 रुपुयु वा समाँन S.O. बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा पुलिलोस वालो उठा लो गेंयु। माँन करन पुर किक माँहिहलोओ क द्दी$ -2 गेंलिलोयु हिदेयु पुन> 12.30 बजा रकित्र माँ S.O.G. प्रर$ वा S.O. बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह माँयु हमाँरहिहयु बलोर 10 माँटर सइकिकलो स 10 स 12 पुलिलोस वालो क सथा माँर इ2 क माँर घर लोकर आयु माँर इ2 खड़ी नह[ ह रह था जार-जार चिचाल्लो रह था माँ- माँ माँझे बचा लो पुलिलोस वालो पुलिलोस वालो माँझे जान स माँर देगें। और घर पुर रख$ माँटर सइ किकलो $ उठा लो गेंयु। माँ^ थान पुर गेंयु माँझे पुलिलोस वालो मिमाँलोन नह[ हिदेयु। सबह स चान मिमाँलो$ किक पुलिलोस कस्टडी$ माँ माँर इ2 किक माँ4त ह गेंयु$ माँर इ2 क- हत्यु उपुरक्त पुलिलोस वालो द्वार क- गेंयु$ ह0। अत> श्री$माँन जा$ स अनर9 ह0 किक S.O. बक्श क आदेलिशत कर किक तत्कलो$न S.O. बक्श वा S.O.G. ट$माँ माँयु हमाँरह$यु क किवारुद्ध हत्यु वा लो ट क माँकदेमाँ देजा2 कर आवाश्युक कयु2वाह$ कर। 69 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 प्रथा@ अजायु क माँर युदेवा S/O कितलोक9र$ युदेवा ग्रामाँ पुकड़ी$ चाकमिमाँजा2पुर थान बक्श जा4नपुर MO 9984669989 हस्तक्षर अजायु युदेवा। नट- उक्त तहर$र वा कयुमाँ$ ह० माँ० सरन्द्र क माँर द्वार बलो -बलोकर अक्षरश> कम्प्यु टर माँ फी-डी करवायु गेंयु।" 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 : "सक्ष$ आइ2० डीब्लो ० 12 क० माँन$र्ष क माँर, थान बक्श न ब्युन किकयु ह0 किक- "8. The IW 16 Kansraj Yadav (an independent witness) has stated before the Judicial Magistrate on 11.02.2021 as under : "सक्ष$ आइ2॰डीब्लो ० 16 कK सरजा युदेवा न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "माँ^ चायु क- दूकन लोगेंत हूँ। हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 माँ माँ0 अपुन$ दूकन पुर था। दूकन क समाँन एस०ओ० बक्श क- गेंड़ी$ खड़ी$ था$। उस समाँयु लोगेंगें 03.30 बजा रह था। वाहK पुर 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो था। वाह स4र पुठाक क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क ब0ठाकर लोकर आयु और माँरू दूकन क समाँन आकर माँटरसइ2किकलो रक दे$। पु$छ स चान्द्रबदेन वा अजायु युदेवा माँटरसइ2किकलो स आयु। क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुलिलोसवालो न गेंड़ी$ माँ डीलो लिलोयु। अजायु वा चान्द्रबदेन न पुलिलोसवालो स पु छतछ क- युह हमाँ नह[ माँलो माँ ह0। क< ष्ण युदेवा स माँर$ दूकन क समाँन किकस$ न माँरपु$ट नह$ क- था$। वा लोगें उस लोकर वाहK स चालो गेंयु था। अगेंलो हिदेन माँझे पुत चालो किक क< ष्ण युदेवा क- माँ<त्यु ह गेंयु$ ह0। माँर समाँन क< ष्ण युदेवा स किकस$ न कइ2 माँरपु$ट नह$ क- था$। माँझे इसक अलोवा और कइ2 जानकर$ नह$ ह0।" 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: "सक्ष$ आइ2॰डीब्लो ० 2 श्री$माँत$ सत्ता न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "माँर त$न लोड़ीक था। बडी क नमाँ अजायु युदेवा, दूसर बट क नमाँ क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ तथा छट बट क प्रदे$पु युदेवा ह0। स4रवा पुKहिडीत माँर घर आयु था। तर$ख युदे नह$ ह0। बलो किक बक्श क देरगें जा$ 70 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 क< ष्ण युदेवा क बलोयु ह0। 03.00 बजा सKयु क< ष्ण युदेवा क स4रवा पुKहिडीत अपुन$ गेंडी$ पुर ब0ठाकर लो गेंयु था। अजायु युदेवा वा गेंKवा क चान्द्रबदेन क माँ^ थान पुर जा$ था$, किक क्यु बत ह0 जा क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुलिलोस बलोयु$ ह0। किफीर रत माँ 08.00 बजा 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो जिजासमाँ क छ सदे$ वादे@ माँ था, माँर घर आयु और घर माँ तड़ी-फीडी करन लोगें। पुट$ क तलो तडीकर 60,000/- रूपुयु लो ट लिलोयु। माँ0न रकन चाह त माँझे घस$टकर बहर कर हिदेयु। पुलिलोस वालो लो टमाँर करक 60,000/- रूपुयु लो ट कर चालो गेंयु। रत माँ^ 12.30 बजा पुलिलोस वालो माँर लोड़ीक क< ष्ण युदेवा क जिजासक बहुत माँरपु$ट रख था क लोकर माँर घर आयु और कह किक डीढ लोख रुपुयु दे नह$ त तम्हर लोड़ीक क जान स माँर देगें। माँ0न कह किक माँ^ पु0स नह$ दे सकत$। किफीर पुलिलोस वालो माँर लोड़ीक क लोकर वामिपुस चालो गेंयु। अगेंलो हिदेन सबह 05.00 बजा पुत चालो किक क< ष्ण क- माँ<त्यु ह गेंयु$ ह0। माँर घर माँ माँर समाँन क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुलिलोस वालो न नह$ माँर था पुरKत वाह बर$ चाटिटलो था।" हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क रकित्र गेंश्त माँ था। रकित्र 10.25 स रकित्र गेंश्त माँ ड्यू ट$ माँ था। माँ^ एस०आइ2० सन$लो क माँर कितवार$ क सथा था वा हमाँरह$ क० समाँ$र क माँर क सथा रकित्र गेंश्त क- ड्यू ट$ माँ था। रकित्र 01.30 स पु4न 2.00 क ब$चा थान स फीन आयु और हमाँ लोगें क थान पुर बलोयु गेंयु। थान पुर जाकर पु छन पुर हमाँ लोगें क बतयु किक किकस$ माँलोजिजामाँ क- तब$युत खरब ह गेंयु$ ह0, उसक अस्पुतलो जान ह0। माँलोजिजामाँ क नमाँ एस०एचा०ओ० सहब न देरगें जा$ क बतयु था किक उसक नमाँ क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ ह0 और युह $ बतयु था किक किक इसक पुट माँ देदे2 ह रह ह0। किफीर रकित्र दे बजा क लोगेंगें माँ^ वा एस०आइ2० सन$लो क माँर कितवार$ वा क० समाँ$र क माँर द्वार माँलोजिजामाँ क प्रथामिमाँक स्वास्थ्यु क न्द्र न4पुड़ीवा लो जायु गेंयु। माँ^ क< ष्ण युदेवा क शर$र पुर कइ2 चाट नह[ देख। क< ष्ण युदेवा न एस कइ2 कथान नह$ किकयु था किक उसक सथा किकस$ पुलिलोसकमाँ@ न माँरपु$ट क- ह0। अस्पुतलो थान स लोगेंगें दे किक०माँ$० क- दूर$ पुर ह0। अस्पुतलो स डीक्टर सहब न क< ष्ण युदेवा क जिजालो अस्पुतलो रफीर कर हिदेयु था। उसक- तब$युत उस समाँयु कफी- खरब था$ पुरन्त वाह माँर पु$ट किकयु जान क- कइ2 बत यु लिशकयुत नह$ कर रह था। समाँदेमियुक चिचाकिकत्सलोयु स क< ष्ण युदेवा क जिजालो अस्पुतलो एoबलोन्स द्वार लो जायु गेंयु था। माँ^ जिजालो अस्पुतलो नह$ गेंयु था।" सक्ष$ आइ2० डीब्लो ० 13 क० समाँ$र क माँर, थान बक्श न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क रकित्र माँ माँ^ एस०आइ2० सन$लो क माँर कितवार$ वा हमाँरह$ क० माँन$र्ष क माँर क सथा रकित्र गेंश्त माँ था किक रकित्र 01.30 स पु4न 2.00 क ब$चा थान स फीन आयु और हमाँ लोगें क थान पुर बलोयु गेंयु। थान पुर जाकर पु छन पुर हमाँ लोगें क बतयु किक किकस$ माँलोजिजामाँ क- तब$युत खरब ह गेंयु$ ह0, उसक अस्पुतलो जान ह0। माँलोजिजामाँ क नमाँ एस०एचा०ओ० सहब न देरगें जा$ क बतयु था किक उसक नमाँ क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ ह0 और युह $ बतयु था किक इसक पुट माँ देदे2 ह रह ह0। किफीर रकित्र दे बजा क लोगेंगें माँलोजिजामाँ क माँर एस०आइ2० सन$लो क माँर कितवार$ वा क० माँन$र्ष क माँर द्वार प्रथामिमाँक स्वास्थ्यु क न्द्र न4पुडीवा लो जायु गेंयु। माँ0न क< ष्ण युदेवा क शर$र पुर कइ2 चाट नह[ देख$। क< ष्ण युदेवा न एस कइ2 कथान नह$ किकयु था किक उसक सथा किकस$ पुलिलोसकमाँ@ न माँरपु$ट क- ह0। अस्पुतलो थान स माँत्र दे किक०माँ$० क- दूर$ पुर ह0। अस्पुतलो स डीक्टर सहब न क< ष्ण युदेवा क जिजालो अस्पुतलो रफीर कर हिदेयु था। उसक- तब$युत उस समाँयु कफी- खरब था$। पुरKत वाह माँरपु$ट किकयु जान क- कइ2 बत यु लिशकयुत नह$ कर रह था। समाँदेमियुक चिचाकिकत्सलोयु स क< ष्ण युदेवा क जिजालो अस्पुतलो एoबलोन्स द्वार लो जायु गेंयु था। माँ^ जिजालो अस्पुतलो नह$ गेंयु था। वाह$ स थान वापुस आ गेंयु था।" सक्ष$ आइ2० डीब्लो ० 14 उपुकिनर$क्षक सन$लो क माँर कितवार$, थान बदेश न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क थान बक्श पुर रकित्र अधि9कर$ क रूपु माँ माँर$ ड्यू ट$ था$। माँ^ अपुन हमाँरहिहयु क० माँन$र्ष क माँर वा क॰समाँ$र क माँर क सथा लोगेंगें 10.40 बजा थान स रवान हकर रकित्र गेंश्त माँ भ्रमाँण पुर था किक रकित्र 01.30 स पु4न 2.00 क ब$चा थान स फीन आयु और हमाँ लोगें 71 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 क थान पुर बलोयु गेंयु। थान पुर जाकर पु छन पुर हमाँ लोगें क बतयु किक किकस$ माँलोजिजामाँ क- तब$युत खरब ह गेंयु$ ह0, उसक अस्पुतलो जान ह0। थानध्युक्ष माँहदेयु स पु छन पुर उन्हन बतयु माँलोजिजामाँ क नमाँ क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ ह0 और युह $ बतयु था किक इसक पुट माँ देदे2 ह रह ह0। किफीर तरKत ह$ माँ^ उपुकिनर$क्षक अपुन हमाँरहिहयु क सथा माँलोजिजामाँ क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क लोकर प्रथामिमाँक स्वास्था क न्द्र न4पुडीवा गेंयु। जाह पुर वाह स्वाKयु ह$ गेंड़ी$ स उतर कर अस्पुतलो क अKदेर गेंयु था तथा डीक्टर सहब द्वार उसक देख गेंयु वा उसक इलोजा किकयु गेंयु। माँ^न माँलोजिजामाँ क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क शर$र पुर कइ2 चाट वा खरचा नह$ देख था तथा उसन माँझेस वा माँर हमाँरहिहयु स $ कइ2 माँरपु$ट, चाट खरचा क जिजाक्र नह$ किकयु था। डीक्टर सहब द्वार जाब उसस पु छ गेंयु त उसन बतयु था किक पुट माँ देदे2 ह रह ह0। युह बत माँ0न अस्पुतलो माँ उसक माँह स सन था। अस्पुतलो थान स कर$ब दे किकलोमाँ$टर क- दूर$ पुर ह0। डीक्टर सहब न वाह पुर माँ4जा दे किकस$ अन्यु व्यक्तिक्त स 108 नम्बर पुर फीन करवायु था तथा बतयु किक इसक- तब$युत खरब ह0, इसक जिजालो चिचाकिकत्सलोयु रफीर किकयु जा रह ह0। तरKत ह$ फीन करन पुर 108 एoबलोन्स स$०एचा०स$० न4पुडीवा पुर आयु$ वा क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क जिजालो चिचाकिकत्सलोयु जा4नपुर लोकर गेंयु$ था$। लोकिकन माँ^ थानध्युक्ष माँहदेयु क सर$ बत बतकर वापुस रकित्र गेंश्त भ्रमाँण हत थान क्षत्र चालो गेंयु था।" 8. The IW 16 Kansraj Yadav (an independent witness) has stated before the Judicial Magistrate on 11.02.2021 as under : "सक्ष$ आइ2॰डीब्लो ० 16 कK सरजा युदेवा न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "माँ^ चायु क- दूकन लोगेंत हूँ। हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 माँ माँ0 अपुन$ दूकन पुर था। दूकन क समाँन एस०ओ० बक्श क- गेंड़ी$ खड़ी$ था$। उस समाँयु लोगेंगें 03.30 बजा रह था। वाहK पुर 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो था। वाह स4र पुठाक क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क ब0ठाकर लोकर आयु और माँरू दूकन क समाँन आकर माँटरसइ2किकलो रक दे$। पु$छ स चान्द्रबदेन वा अजायु युदेवा माँटरसइ2किकलो स आयु। क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुलिलोसवालो न गेंड़ी$ माँ डीलो लिलोयु। अजायु वा चान्द्रबदेन न पुलिलोसवालो स पु छतछ क- युह हमाँ नह[ माँलो माँ ह0। क< ष्ण युदेवा स माँर$ दूकन क समाँन किकस$ न माँरपु$ट नह$ क- था$। वा लोगें उस लोकर वाहK स चालो गेंयु था। अगेंलो हिदेन माँझे पुत चालो किक क< ष्ण युदेवा क- माँ<त्यु ह गेंयु$ ह0। माँर समाँन क< ष्ण युदेवा स किकस$ न कइ2 माँरपु$ट नह$ क- था$। माँझे इसक अलोवा और कइ2 जानकर$ नह$ ह0।" 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: "सक्ष$ आइ2॰डीब्लो ० 2 श्री$माँत$ सत्ता न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "माँर त$न लोड़ीक था। बडी क नमाँ अजायु युदेवा, दूसर बट क नमाँ क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ तथा छट बट क प्रदे$पु युदेवा ह0। स4रवा पुKहिडीत माँर घर आयु था। तर$ख युदे नह$ ह0। बलो किक बक्श क देरगें जा$ क< ष्ण युदेवा क बलोयु ह0। 03.00 बजा सKयु क< ष्ण युदेवा क स4रवा पुKहिडीत अपुन$ गेंडी$ पुर ब0ठाकर लो गेंयु था। अजायु युदेवा वा गेंKवा क चान्द्रबदेन क माँ^ थान पुर जा$ था$, किक क्यु बत ह0 जा क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुलिलोस बलोयु$ ह0। किफीर रत माँ 08.00 बजा 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो जिजासमाँ क छ सदे$ वादे@ माँ था, माँर घर आयु और घर माँ तड़ी-फीडी करन लोगें। पुट$ क तलो तडीकर 60,000/- रूपुयु लो ट लिलोयु। माँ0न रकन चाह त माँझे घस$टकर बहर कर हिदेयु। पुलिलोस वालो लो टमाँर करक 60,000/- रूपुयु लो ट कर चालो गेंयु। रत माँ^ 12.30 बजा पुलिलोस वालो माँर लोड़ीक क< ष्ण युदेवा क जिजासक बहुत माँरपु$ट रख था क लोकर माँर घर आयु और कह किक डीढ लोख रुपुयु दे नह$ त तम्हर लोड़ीक क जान स माँर देगें। माँ0न कह किक माँ^ पु0स नह$ दे सकत$। किफीर पुलिलोस वालो माँर लोड़ीक क लोकर वामिपुस चालो गेंयु। अगेंलो 72 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 हिदेन सबह 05.00 बजा पुत चालो किक क< ष्ण क- माँ<त्यु ह गेंयु$ ह0। माँर घर माँ माँर समाँन क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुलिलोस वालो न नह$ माँर था पुरKत वाह बर$ चाटिटलो था।" सक्ष$ आइ2० डीब्लो ० 3 अजायु क माँर युदेवा न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "माँ^ ए०स$० माँ0क किनक क ह0ल्पुर क रूपु माँ एक सलो स कमाँ कर रह हूँ। उसक पुहलो पुढत था। हमाँ त$न इ2 था। माँ<तक क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ माँKझेलो इ2 था। हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क समाँयु 03.00 बजा स4र पुठाक पुत्र जिजातन्द्र पुठाक बइ2क स आयु जाकिक क< ष्ण युदेवा क पुस आत जात था। माँ0न उसक आत हुए देख था। वा आकर बलो किक एस०ओ० सहब रडी पुर खड़ी ह0 और तझेक बलो रह ह0। रडी घर स 150 माँ$टर दूर$ पुर ह0। क< ष्ण उसक- बइ2क पुर ब0ठाकर चालो गेंयु। माँ^ और चान्द्रबदेन उसक पु$छ-पु$छ बइ2क स गेंयु था। रडी पुर जाकर स4र बइ2क रक हिदेयु। जाह पुर पुलिलोस वालो था, जिजासमाँ स क छ वादे@9र$ नह[ था। रडी स क< ष्ण युदेवा क जाबरदेस्त$ ब0ठान लोगें त माँ0न किवार9 किकयु। त उन्हन कह किक माँ^ एस॰ओ॰जा$॰ स ह0 पु छतछ क लिलोए लो जा रह ह0। उस ट$माँ माँ एस०ओ० अजायु क माँर $ था। बकिक क लोगें क माँ^ नह[ पुहचानत। किफीर पुलिलोस वालो क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क गेंड़ी$ माँ ब0ठाकर लो गेंयु। यु घटन कK सरजा युदेवा जिजासक- रडी पुर चायु क- दुकन ह0 न $ देख$। माँ^ वापुस घर चालो आयु। घर आकर घटन क बर माँ लोगें क बतयु। कर$ब 04.30 बजा माँ^ तथा चान्द्रबदेन थान बक्श गेंयु। जाब हमाँ थान पुर गेंयु त देख किक क< ष्ण जामाँ$न पुर ब0ठा था। उसन हमाँक बतयु किक पुलिलोस वालो उसक माँर-पु$ट ह0। वाह कह रह था किक इ2 हमाँक बचा लो, पुलिलोस वालो बहुत माँर रह ह0। हमाँक पुलिलोस वालो न उसस मिमाँलोन नह$ हिदेयु और पुजार$ क उठाकर अKदेर लो गेंयु। हमाँ लोगें क गेंलो$ देकर तन क गें हिदेयु। वाहK स माँ0न बहर किनकलोकर एस०पु$० सहब क फीन करक तथा व्हटसएपु करक बतयु। पुरKत एस०पु$० सहब न सKतर्षजानक जावाब नह$ हिदेयु। माँर$ उनस फीन पुर बत हुइ2 था$। किफीर माँ^ घर चालो गेंयु। रत क 08.00 बजा क कर$ब 10-12 पुलिलोसवालो जिजासमाँ क छ वादे@9र$ नह[ था आयु और घर माँ घस गेंयु तथा देरवाजा पु$टन लोगें। माँ^ तथा माँर$ माँतजा$ न क< ष्ण युदेवा क बर माँ पु छ त उन लोगें न कह किक वा थान पुर ह0। किफीर पुलिलोसवालो न माँर छट इ2 क- पुत्न$ कमाँलो जा अKदेर क कमाँर माँ सइ2 था$ उसक जाबरदेस्त$ देरवाजा खलोवाकर हथा स पुकड़ीकर किनकलो हिदेयु। दे माँबइ2लो और माँटरसइ2किकलो जाबरदेस्त$ लो गेंयु। रत माँ पुन> 12.30 बजा 10-12 पुलिलोसवालो माँर इ2 क लोकर आयु जिजासमाँ एस०ओ० अजायु क माँर सिंसMह $ था। माँर इ2 र पु$ट रह था और चालो नह$ पु रह था। दे पुलिलोसवालो उसक पुकड़ी कर लोयु और बहर पुड़ी$ चारपुइ2 पुर डीलो हिदेयु। माँर इ2 जार जार स कह रह था किक जा $ पु0स ह इनक लोकर दे दे और हमाँक बचा लोगेंह$ त यु लोगें माँझे माँर डीलोगें। माँर$ माँतजा$ माँर इ2 क पुकड़ीकर रन लोगें$, कहन लोगें$ जा $ पु0स था वा त आपु लोगें पुहलो ह$ लो ट चाक ह किफीर एस०ओ० अजायु क माँर न कह किक सलो प्र9न$ लोडीगें, माँ^ इसक प्र9न$ लोड़ीत हूँ। किफीर एस०ओ० अजायु क माँर सिंसMह न कह किक अगेंर अपुन लोड़ीक क सह$ सलोमाँत देखन चाहत ह त डीढ लोख रुपुयु लोकर थान आओ नह$ त इस गेंलो$ माँर देगें। हमाँ रत माँ थान पुर नह$ गेंयु। सबह 06.00 06.30 बजा हल्लो हन लोगें किक क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क पुलिलोस वालो न जान स माँर हिदेयु। इसक बदे लोगेंगें 08.00 बजा एस०पु$० लिसट$ क आवास पुर गेंयु और उनक पु र$ बत बतयु$। एस०पु$० लिसट$ न हिदेलोश देकर कह किक एस$ कइ2 बत नह$ ह0 तम्हर इ2 जाल्दे$ छ ट जायुगें। एस०पु$० लिसट$ न एक देरगें क बलोयु जिजानक नमाँ रजाश युदेवा ह0 जा शयुदे सरपुतहK थान स ह0 बलोवायु। किफीर एस०पु$० लिसट$ अKदेर चालो गेंयु और एस०ओ० रजाश युदेवा हमाँक बहर लो गेंयु। माँझे बतयु किक तम्हर इ2 क- माँ<त्यु ह गेंयु$ ह0। वा बलो जा हन था वा ह गेंयु, उनक एस नह[ करन चाहिहए था। किफीर वा माँझे गेंड़ी$ माँ ब0ठाकर जाबरदेस्त$ सदे अस्पुतलो लो गेंयु। वाहK पुर 100-200 पुलिलोसवालो पुहलो स माँ4जा दे था। और तमाँमाँ लोगें $ था। बड़ी$ कहन सनन क बदे हमाँ तथा प्रमाँदे युदेवा क हमाँर इ2 क माँKह हिदेखयु। माँर इ2 क हथा कलो ह रह था। पु र$ पु$ठा कलो$ ह गेंयु$ था$। र$ढ क- हडीu डी$ क पुस ख न किनकलो रह था। किफीर हमाँ लोगें क बहर किनकलो हिदेयु। पुलिलोस वालो रिरपुट2 लिलोखन क त0युर नह[ 73 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 था, जाब लोगें न देबवा बनयु त सKयु क समाँयु रिरपुट2 लिलोख$ गेंयु$। रिरपुट2 माँ0न लिलोखयु$ था$। जा देपुहर माँ 03.00 बजा पुलिलोसवालो रडी पुर स पुजार$ क उठा कर लो गेंयु था त उस समाँयु उस कइ2 नह$ माँर था। जाब हमाँ थान पुर गेंयु पुलिलोसवालो जा 4-5 क- सKख्यु माँ था डीण्डी वा बल्ट स माँर रह था। जाब रत माँ पुलिलोसवालो घर लोकर आयु था तब किकस$ पुलिलोसवालो न न नह$ माँर था। माँर$ माँतजा$ क प्लोन्धिस्टक क पुइ2पु माँर था। सब पुलिलोसवालो द्दी$-द्दी$ गेंलिलोयु दे रह था। माँर इ2 क कइ2 आपुरधि9क इकितहस नह$ था। वाह स$9-स$9 व्यक्तिक्त था। माँर इ2 क उठान माँ स4र पुठाक क पु र हथा ह0 पुरKत पुलिलोसवालो उसक खिखलोफी कइ2 कयु2वाह$ नह$ कर रह ह0। माँर इ2 पु ण2 रूपु स स्वास्था था, उस कइ2 किबमाँर$ नह$ था$। उसक- माँ<त्यु पुलिलोसवालो क माँरन क करण स हुइ2 ह0।" सक्ष$ आइ2॰डीब्लो ० 4 प्रदे$पु युदेवा न बयुन किकयु ह0 किक- "हमाँ लोगें त$न इ2 था। जिजासमाँ माँ^ सबस छट हूँ। अजायु युदेवा सबस बडी, क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ ब$चा वालो इ2 था। माँ0 माँम्बइ2 माँ रहकर ए०स$० माँ0क किनक क कमाँ करत हूँ। माँर मिपुतजा$ $ माँम्बइ2 माँ रहकर गेंड़ी$ चालोत ह0। हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क माँर$ पुत्न$ कमाँलो युदेवा न फीन करक बतयु किक माँर इ2 क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस उठा लो गेंयु$ ह0। माँर पु छन पुर उसन बतयु किक थान बक्श क- पुलिलोस जिजास माँ एस०ओ० अजायु सिंसMह वा एस०ओ०जा$० क- ट$माँ रडी पुर स उठा कर लो गेंयु$ ह0। उसन बतयु किक स4र पुठाक उसक बलोकर लो गेंयु था। पुलिलोसवालो कह रह था किक पु छतछ करक छड़ी देगें और हमाँ लोगें किनश्चिंश्चाMत ह गेंयु। किफीर माँर$ पुत्न$ न फीन करक बतयु किक पुलिलोसवालो घर पुर आकर पु0स और घर क समाँन लो ट लो गें9 ह0, तब हमाँ घबर गेंयु और अन्यु लोगें स बतचा$त किकयु। पुरKत उन लोगें द्वार कइ2 सKतर्षजानक जावाब नह$ हिदेयु गेंयु। रत 12.30 क बदे माँर$ पुत्न$ द्वार पुन> फीन करक रत हुए बतयु गेंयु किक पुलिलोसवालो इ2यु क लोकर आयु था। क लो 10-12 क- सKख्यु माँ था। क छ वादे@ नह$ पुहन था। उसन बतयु किक पुलिलोसवालो ज्युदेमाँर हिदेयु ह0, जिजासस वाह चालो नह$ पु रह ह0। इ2यु र रह था किक जा $ पु0स ह0 देकर माँर$ जान बचा लो नह$ त यु लोगें माँझे जान स माँर देगें। एस०ओ० अजायु सिंसMह न द्दी$-द्दी$ गेंलिलोयुK दे$ और कह किक अगेंर पु0स नह$ देगें त सबह तर बट क- लोश मिमाँलोगें$। युह बत माँर$ पुत्न$ द्वार माँझे फीन करक बतयु$ गेंयु$ था$। सबह 06.00 बजा क 12 तर$ख क माँर$ पुत्न$ क फीन आयु किक पुलिलोसवालो न क< ष्ण युदेवा क माँर डीलो ह0 और सदेर अस्पुतलो माँ छड़ीकर चालो गेंयु ह0। हमाँ लोगें उन्ह देखन जा रह ह0। किफीर माँ^, माँर मिपुतजा$, माँर बडी पुपु क लोड़ीक किवानदे युदेवा फीलोइ2ट द्वार जा4नपुर आयु। जा4नपुर सदेर 07.00 बजा क ब$चा माँ पुहुचा। माँ0न अस्पुतलो सKयुकलो 06.30 और माँर पु र पुरिरवार न इ2 क शवा क देख था। इसक- कमाँर पुर वा आख, नक वा कन स ख न आ रह था। किफीर हमाँ लोगें क अस्पुतलो स हट हिदेयु गेंयु।" सक्ष$ आइ2॰डीब्लो ० 5 डी० माँन$र्ष क माँर क सरवान$ स$०एचा०स$० सजानगेंKजा (पुस्टमाँट2माँ कत2) न ब्युन किकयु ह0 किक- माँख्यु चिचाकिकत्सधि9कर$, जा4नपुर क आदेश क अनसर माँर$ ड्यू ट$ हिदेनKक 12.02.2021 क पुस्टमाँट2माँ हऊस, जा4नपुर लोगेंयु$ गेंयु$ था$। माँर अलोवा माँर पु0नलो माँ डी० शहिहदे अख्तर, स$०एचा०स$० माँहिडीयुहूँ वा डी०प्रवा$ण क माँर, स$०एचा०स$० रहट$ एoवा फीमाँ2लिसस्ट अवा9श क माँर, पुलिलोस लोइ2न अस्पुतलो माँ4जा दे था। हिदेनKक 12.02.2021 क ए०डी$०एमाँ० क आदेशनसर रकित्र 09.10 पु$०एमाँ० पुर क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क शवा किवाच्छेदे शरू किकयु गेंयु। शवा किवाच्छेदे क- कयु2वाह$ क- किवाहिडीयुग्राफी- शमाँ माँ4यु2 द्वार क- गेंयु$। शवा क क० अरकिवान्दे क माँर वा क० माँन$र्ष क माँर थान बक्श द्वार पुस्टमाँट2माँ हऊस लोयु गेंयु था। पुस्टमाँट2माँ रिरपुट2 पुर माँर पु0नलो द्वार किनम्न चाट पुयु$ गेंयु$- (1) Contusion of size 30 x 20 cm देन किनतम्ब पुर जाकिक लोलो र रKगें लिलोयु हुए था। 74 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 (2) Contusion of size 15 x 08 cm लोगेंगें उपुर$ पु$ठा पुर देन तरफी कK 9 क पुस जाकिक लोलो र रKगें लिलोयु हुए था। (3) Contusion of size 10 x 08 cm लोगेंगें बयु जा पुर बहर तरफी था जाकिक न$लो रKगें लिलोए हुए था। उक्त त$न चाट क अलोवा अन्यु कइ2 जाहिहर चाट नह$ था$। कइ2 हड्डी$ $ ट ट$ नह$ था$। किकस$ 9रदेर हधिथायुर क- $ कइ2 चाट नह$ था$। उक्त चाट एस$ प्रक< त$ क- नह$ था$, जिजासमाँ किक किकस$ क- माँ<त्यु प्रयु> सम्व्य ह। जाब शवा क किवाच्छेदे किकयु गेंयु त प्रथामाँत> छत$ खलोन पुर युह पुयु गेंयु किक देन फी फीड़ी माँ ख न र हुआ था। पुसलो$ माँ कइ2 हिदेक्तत नह$ था$। सKस नलो$ समाँन्यु था$। गेंदे2न माँ कइ2 हिदेक्कत नह$ था$। हृदेयु क दे चा0म्बर माँ ख न र था। हृदेयु क देहिहन चा0म्बर Ventricle' क- मिपुछलो$ हिदेवार पुर 2 x 1 cm क सफी दे 9ब्ब था। जा किक चिचाखिन्हत करत ह0 किक उक्त 9ब्ब MI (हिदेलो क दे4र) 'हृदेयुघत' हन क- वाजाह स सम्व्य ह0।" 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 सवा माँ, श्री$माँन जिजालोधि9कर$/ पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर किवार्षयु> माँ० अ० सK०- 38/2021 अन्तगें2त 9र-30, 394, 504 आइ2० पु$० स$० थान-बक्श, जिजालो-जा4नपुर माँ 161 Cr.P.C क बयुन क सम्बE9 माँ- हलोफीनमाँ मिमाँनजाकिनब अजायु पुत्र कितलोक9र$ उम्र त० 30 वार्ष2 स० माँ4०- चाकमिमाँजा2पुर, थान-बक्श, जिजालो-जा4नपुर हस्वा जा0लो ह0>- देफी-1 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँ^ उपुरक्त नमाँ वा पुत क माँ लो किनवास$ हूँ तथा माँर नमाँ वा बन्धिल्देयुत क कइ2 अन्यु व्यक्तिक्त माँर माँ4जा माँ नह$ ह0। देफी-2 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँकदेमाँ उपुरक्त माँ वादे$ हूँK। देफी-3 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ पुत्र कितलोक9र$ उ० त० 24 वार्ष2 स० माँ4 चाकमिमाँजा2पुर, थान-बक्श, जिजालो-जा4नपुर माँर छट इ2 था। देफी-4 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँर छट इ2 क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ क ऊपुर जानपुदे जा4नपुर क किकस$ $ थान माँ कइ2 माँकदेमाँ नह$ था क< ष्ण एक स$9-स9 व्यवाहर क शलो लोड़ीक था। और वाह प्र9न पुदे क लिलोयु त0युर$ कर रह था। देफी-5 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क समाँयु कर$ब 3 बजा हिदेन क- ह0। माँ^ वा माँर छट इ2 क< ष्ण और माँर मिमाँत्र चान्द्रबदेन युदेवा घर पुर ब0ठाकर बतचा$त कर रह था किक माँटर सइकिकलो स स4र पुठाक पुत्र जिजातन्द्र पुठाक स० माँ4०-लिसह$पुर, थान लोइन बजार, जिजालो-जा4नपुर क< ष्ण क घर पुर आयु तथा क< ष्ण स कह क- रडी पुर चालो बक्श S.O अजायु क माँर सिंसMह बलो रह ह0। तब क< ष्ण स4र पुठाक क- माँटर सइ किकलो पुर ब0ठाकर उसक सथा चालो गेंयु। देफी-6 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँ^ अजायु वा माँर मिमाँत्र चान्द्रबदेन क सथा उनक पु$छ-पु$छ माँन रडी पुर पुहुचा त स4र न माँटर सइकिकलो लो जाकर कK शरजा युदेवा क- दुकन क समाँन माँन रडी पुर रक हिदेयु। वाहK पुहलो स खड़ी S.O बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा क छ पुलिलोस वालो वाहK था क< ष्ण क 78 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 जाबरदेस्त$ अपुन$ गेंड़ी$ माँ ब0ठाकर लोकर जान लोगें माँ^ वा चान्द्रबदेन न पुलिलोस वालो स पु छ क्यु लो जा रह ह0 त क छ पुलिलोस वालो बलो क- हमाँ लोगें S.O.G स ह0 पु छतछ क लिलोए लो जा रह ह0 स4र $ पुलिलोस वालो क- गेंड़ी$ क सथा-सथा अपुन$ माँटर सइकिकलो स गेंयु। देफी-7 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो क लो जात समाँयु अजायु वा कK शरजा युदेवा वा माँ^ तथा गेंवा वा अगेंलो-बगेंलो क तमाँमाँ लोगें न देख। देफी-8 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक क< ष्ण युदेवा क थान बक्श पुलिलोस लो जान क बदे माँ^ वा चान्द्रबदेन युदेवा $ थान बक्श गेंयु माँ^ वा माँर मिमाँत्र चान्द्रबदेन न देख माँर इ2 क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो लोKकअपु माँ बन्दे किकयु था माँर इ2 र रह था। माँ^ वा चान्द्रबदेन न क< ष्ण स मिमाँलोन क प्रयुस किकयु त पुलिलोस वालो माँझे वा चान्द्रबदेन क गेंलो$-गेंफ्त देत हुए थान स गें हिदेयु। देफी-9 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक थान माँ पुलिलोस वालो द्वार माँर इ2 क< ष्ण क लो€कअपु माँ बन्दे करन पुर माँझे किवाश्वास ह गेंयु किक माँर इ2 क पुलिलोस वालो किकस$ फीजा@ माँकदेमाँ माँ चालोन कर देगें। देफी-10 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक अपुन छट इ2 क< ष्ण क फीजा@ माँकदेमाँ माँ फीK सन वा प्रण रक्ष क लिलोए श्री$माँन पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर क माँ4० नK०- 9454400280 पुर अपुन माँबइलो नK०- 9984669989 स दे बर फीन लोगेंगें 5.35 बजा शमाँ हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क फीन किकयु तथा सह$ जाबवा न मिमाँलोन पुर श्री$माँन पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर क माँबइलो वाटuसअपु पुर अपुन इ2 क बर माँ थान बक्श जाबरदेस्त$ उठा लो जान क बवात माँ0सजा $ किकयु था। जिजासक रिरकडी2 माँर पुस ह0। देफी-11 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क समाँयु रकित्र 8 बजा माँ^ अजायु युदेवा वा माँर$ पुत्न$ सन$त, माँर$ माँत सरस्वात$ देवा$, $ गेंहिड़ीयु, चाचार इ2 प्रमाँदे युदेवा ओसर माँ ब0ठाकर बतचा$त कर रह था। और हमाँर छट इ2 प्रदे$पु युदेवा क- पुत्न$ कमाँलो युदेवा क- तकिबयुत खरब हन क- वाजाह स वाह घर क अन्देर सइ2 था$। हमाँ सब पुरिरवारजान क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो किबन वाजाह क क्यु लोकर गेंयु इस$ किवार्षयु माँ बतचा$त कर रह था। त$ थान बक्श S.O अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो क छ वादे@ माँ क छ सदे वादे@ माँ माँर घर पुर आयु। और द्दी$ द्दी$ गेंलो$ देन लोगें। माँर वा पुरिरवार क पु छन पुर किक माँर इ2 कह ह0 त पुलिलोस वालो न बतयु किक तम्हर इ2 क< ष्ण थान माँ ह0। देफी-12 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँर वा पुरिरवार वालो क किवार9 करन पुर बन्दूक हिदेखकर चापु कर हिदेयु। और देरवाजा पु$टन लोगें। अन्देर माँर छट इ2 प्रदे$पु युदेवा क- पुत्न$ कमाँलो युदेवा शरगेंलो और देरवाजा जार-जार स पु$टन क- वाजाह स देरवाजा खलो। त उसक द्दी$-द्दी$ गेंलो$ देत हुए हथा पुकड़ीकर 9क्क देत हुए घर स बहर किनकलो हिदेयु। घर माँ घसकर बक्श क तलो तड़ीकर बक्श माँ रख 60 हजार रूपुयु जा माँ0न अपुन माँ4स सKतर्ष युदेवा पुत्र ज्वालो युदेवा स खत जा माँर रहन पुर था छ ड़ीन क लिलोए लिलोयु था। देफी-13 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक घर क अन्देर रख हुआ खन-पु$न फी क हिदेयु और 9माँकत हुए वा द्दी$-द्दी$ गेंलो$ देत हुए बलो किक अगेंर तमाँ लोगें हल्लो गेंल्लो करगें त तमाँ सबक माँरगें। और क< ष्ण क जान स माँर देगें। जात समाँयु घर पुर खड़ी$ अपुचा जिजासक नम्बर-UP 62/BF3621 $ उठा लो गेंयु। देफी-14 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक 11/12.02.2021 क रकित्र लोगेंगें 12.30 बजा वाह$ पुलिलोस वालो जा रकित्र 8 बजा आयु था वाह$ पुलिलोस वालो माँर इ2 क< ष्ण युदेवा क घस$टत हुए घर पुर लोयु त माँर इ2 ठा•क स खड़ी नह[ ह पु रह था। बहर पुड़ी$ चारपुइ2 पुर उस फी क हिदेयु। माँर इ2 जार-जार स करह रह था माँK-माँK माँझे बचा लो। उसक बदे पुलिलोस वालो माँर इ2 क बलो पुकड़ीकर चारपुइ2 79 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 स जामाँ$न पुर पुटक हिदेयु। और पुलिलोस वालो बलो सलो प्र9न$ लोड़ीगें त तझे उस लोयुक नह$ छडी गें। देफी-15 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँर वा पुरिरवार क पु छन पुर किक सहब माँर इ2 न क्यु गेंलोत$ क- ह0 जा आपु इस इतन माँर ह0 और हमाँ गेंर$ब लोगें क क्यु सत रह ह0। त S.O अजायु क माँर सिंसMह न गेंलो$ देत हुए कह किक चापु रह नह[ त तम्हर $ युह$ हलो करगें। और पु0स लोओ त$ तम्हर इ2 क छड़ीगें अगेंर पु0स नह[ देगें त तम्हर इ2 क- जान लो लोगें। हत्यु कर देगें। माँ^ वा माँर पु र पुरिरवार पुलिलोस वालो क समाँन हथा जाड़ीकर रन लोगें किक सहब माँर इ2 क छड़ी दे। लोकिकन द्दी$-द्दी$ सलो$ देत हुए माँर इ2 क घस$टत हुए लोकर चालो गेंयु। देफी-18 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँझे अफीवाहन सबह 12.02.2021 क 8 बजा पुत चालो किक माँर इ2 क अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा S.O.G ट$माँ वा पुलिलोस वालो द्वार हत्यु कर दे$ गेंयु$। देफी-19 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँ^ उक्त स चान पुर क्षत्रधि9कर$ सदेर क युह गेंयु त क्षत्रधि9कर$ सदेर न थान पुर फीन कर पुत किकयु पुत करन क बर माँझे सदेर अस्पुतलो जा4नपुर लो गेंयु जाहK पुर माँर इ2 क शवा पुड़ी था। देफी-20 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक पुलिलोस वालो माँर इ2 क पुस्टमाँट2माँ करन वा शवा जालोन क देबवा बनन लोगें। माँ0न कह किक पुहलो माँर इ2 क- हत्यु क माँकदेमाँ पुलिलोस वालो पुर देजा2 किकयु जायु तब पुस्टमाँट2माँ हत लोश जा$ जायु। देफी-21 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक उक्त घटन क- स चान माँख्युमाँKत्र$ उ० प्र० सरकर क I.G.R.S क माँध्युमाँ तथा माँनवाधि9कर आयुगें क फी0 क्स क माँध्युमाँ स स चान हिदेयु वा अपुन पुरिरवार वालो क स चान हिदेयु। देफी 22 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक अगेंलो-बगेंलो गेंKवा क छ सम्न्त व्यक्तिक्तयु द्वार प्रदेश2न सदेर अस्पुतलो माँ किकयु गेंयु कफी- देबवा क बदे माँर इ2 क हत्यु क बवात माँकदेमाँ उपुरक्त देजा2 हुआ। देफी-23 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक उक्त अजायु क माँर सिंसMह थानध्युक्ष बक्श वा S.O.G ट$माँ वा पुलिलोस वालो क माँरन स पुलिलोस कस्टडी$ माँ माँर इ2 माँर गेंयु तथा झे ठा• कहन$ बनकर माँर$ इ2 क ऊपुर झे ठा माँकदेमाँ लिलोखकर घटन किक लिलोपु पुत$ पुलिलोस द्वार क- जा रह$ ह0। देफी-24 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक उक्त बत माँर 161 स$० आर० पु$० स$० क बयुन माँनत हुए सम्बन्धिE9त किवावाचाक क प्रमिर्षत करन क- क< पु कर। अत> श्री$माँन जा$ स अनर9 ह0 किक उक्त बयुन हलोफी- क माँर 161 स$०आर०पु$० स$० क बयुन क रूपु माँ देजा2 करन क- क< पु कर। Statements of Kanashraj Yadav समाँक्ष, श्री$माँन जिजालोधि9कर$ / पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर किवार्षयु>- माँ० अ० सK०- 38/2021 अन्तगें2त 9र-302, 394, 504, 452 I.P.C थान-बक्श, जिजालो- जा4नपुर माँ 161 Cr.P.C क बयुन क सम्बE9 माँ- हलोफीनमाँ मिमाँनजाकिनब कK शरजा युदेवा उ० त० 40 वार्ष2 पुत्र जालोE9र युदेवा ग्रामाँ- चाकमिमाँजा2पुर, थान- बक्श, जिजालो-जा4नपुर हस्ब जा0लो ह0>- देफी-1 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक उपुरक्त नमाँ पुत क स्थायु$ किनवास$ हूँK माँर$ दुकन माँन रडी पुर युदेवा जालोपुन, क< ष्ण डीर$ क नमाँ स ह0। 80 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 देफी-2 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँर$ दुकन इलोहबदे रडी पुर ह0। हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 समाँयु लोगेंगें 3 बजा हिदेन माँर$ दुकन क समाँन S.O बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा कर$ब 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो दे गेंड़ी$ स खड़ी था त$ स4र पुठाक, क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ पुत्र कितलोक9र$ माँटर सइकिकलो स लोकर पुलिलोस वालो क पुस आयु और पु$छ स अजायु युदेवा, क< ष्ण क इ2 वा चान्द्रबदेन युदेवा $ आ गेंयु। देफी-3 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक अजायु युदेवा पुलिलोस वालो स क< ष्ण क लो जान क करण पु छ त पुलिलोस वालो बलो क- S.O.G स ह$ पु छतछ क लिलोए लो जा रह ह0। माँर समाँन ह$ S.O बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा S.O.G ट$माँ क पुलिलोस वालो द्वार क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ क पुकड़ीकर लो गेंयु। देफी-4 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक 12.02.2021 क गेंवा क अफीवाहन पुत चालो किक क< ष्ण युदेवा क- पुलिलोस कस्टडी$ माँ माँ4त ह गेंयु$ ह0 लोश सदेर अस्पुतलो माँ पुड़ी$ ह0। देफी-5 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक क< ष्ण क- माँ4त पुलिलोस वालो क माँरन स आयु$ चाट क करण हुइ2 ह0। देफी-6 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक हलोफीनमाँ माँर किनजा$ ज्ञान माँ सचा वा सह$ ह0 न कइ2 बत झे ठा ह0 न चिछपुयु$ गेंयु$, इ2श्वार माँर$ माँदेदे कर। Statements of Chandrabadan Yadav सवा माँ, श्री$माँन जिजालोधि9कर$ / पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर किवार्षयु> माँ० अ० सK०-38/2021 अन्तगें2त 9र-302, 394, 504, 452.I.P.C थान-बक्श, जिजालो- जा4नपुर माँ 161 Cr.P.C क बयुन क सम्बE9 माँ- हलोफीनमाँ मिमाँनजाकिनब चान्द्रबदेन पुत्र बब रमाँ युदेवा उम्र त० 25 वार्ष2 स० माँ4०-चाकमाँलोनपुर, थान- बक्श, जिजालो-जा4नपुर हस्ब जा0लो ह0:- देफी-1 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँ^ उपुरक्त नमाँ वा पुत क माँ लो किनवास$ हूँK तथा माँर नमाँ वा बन्धिल्देयुत क कइ2 अन्यु व्यक्तिक्त माँर माँ4जा माँ नह$ ह0। देफी-2 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ माँर मिमाँत्र क इ2 था। देफी-3 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ माँर मिमाँत्र क छट इ2 था जानपुदे क किकस$ $ थान माँ कइ2 माँकदेमाँ नह$ था क< ष्ण एक स$9 सदे व्यवाहर क शलो लोड़ीक था और वा प्र9न पुदे क लिलोए त0युर$ कर रह था। देफी-4 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक हिदेनKक 11/2/2021 क समाँयु 2 बजा स अजायु क सथा उनक घर पुर था हिदेनKक 11/2/2021 क समाँयु कर$ब 3 बजा माँटरसइकिकलो स स4र पुठाक पुत्र जिजातन्द्र पुठाक स० माँ4० स$ह$पुर थान लोइन बजार जिजालो जा4नपुर क< ष्ण क घर पुर आयु तथा क< ष्ण स कह रडी पुर चालो बक्स एस० ओ० अजायु क माँर सिंसMह बलो रह ह^ क< ष्ण स4र पुठाक किक बइक पु चालो गेंयु। देफी-5 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँ किक माँ^ वा अजायु, स4र पुठाक क मिपुछ मिपुछ कK शरजा युदेवा किक दुकन क समाँन माँन रडी पु गेंयु त माँ0न देख स4र न माँटरसइकिकलो लो जाकर कK शरजा युदेवा क दुकन क समाँन माँन रडी पु रक हिदेयु त वाहK पुहलो स खड़ी एस० ओ० बक्स अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा क छ पुलिलोस वालो था क< ष्ण क देबरदेन्धिस्त अपुन$ गेंड़ी$ लोकर जान लोगें माँ^ वा अजायु न पुलिलोस वालो स 81 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 पुछ क्यु लोकर जा रह ह0 त क छ पुलिलोस वालो बलो किक हमाँ एस० ओ० जा$० स ह0 पु छतछ क लिलोए लो जा रह ह0 स4र पुठाक $ पुलिलोस वालो किक गेंड़ी$ क सथा सथा अपुन$ माँटरसइकिकलो स गेंयु। देफी-6 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो क लो जात समाँयु अजायु वा कK शरजा युदेवा वा माँ^ तथा गेंवा वा अगेंलो बगेंलो क तमाँमाँ लोगें न देख। देफी-7 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक क< ष्ण युदेवा क थान बक्स पुलिलोस लो जान क बदे माँ^ वा अजायु $ थान बक्स गेंयु माँ^ वा अजायु न देख क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो लोKकअपु माँ बन्दे किकयु था क< ष्ण र रह था माँ^ वा अजायु न क< ष्ण स मिमाँलोन क प्रयुस किकयु त पुलिलोस वालो गेंलो$गेंप्त देत हुए थान स गें हिदेयु। देफी-8 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक पुलिलोस वालो द्वार माँर मिमाँत्र क इ2 क< ष्ण युदेवा क लोKकअपु माँ बन्दे करन पुर माँझे किवाश्वास ह गेंयु किक क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो किकस$ फीर्जिजाM माँकदेमाँ माँ चालोन कर देगें। देफी-9 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक क< ष्ण क फीर्जिजाM माँकदेमाँ माँ फीK सन वा प्रण रक्ष क लिलोए माँर मिमाँत्र अजायु न श्री$माँन पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर क माँ० नK०- 9454400280 पुर अपुन माँबइलो नK० 9984669989 स दे बर फीन लोगेंगें 5.35 बजा समाँ हिदेनKक 11/2/2021 क फीन किकयु तथा सह$ जाबवा न मिमाँलोन पुर श्री$माँन पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर क माँ० वाटuसपु पुर अपुन इ2 क बर थान बक्स जाबरदेस्त$ उठा लो जान क बवात माँ0सजा $ किकयु था जिजासक रिरकडी2 अजायु क पुस ह0। देफी-10 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक सबह पुत चालो पुलिलोस वालो एस० ओ० बक्स अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा एस० ओ० जा$० रत माँ क< ष्ण क घर आयु घर माँ घसकर 60 हजार रूपुयु वा माँटरसइकिकलो नK० यु ० पु$० 62 ब$० एफी० 3621 उठा लो गेंयु माँन करन पुर पुरिरवार वालो क द्दी$ द्दी$ गेंलो$ गेंप्त हिदेयु। देफी-11 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक सबह अफीवाहन पुत चालो किक क< ष्ण युदेवा किक पुलिलोस द्वार माँरन मिपुटन क वाजाह स उसक- माँ<त्यु ह गेंयु$। देफी-12 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक जाब माँ^ सदेर जा4नपुर पुहुKचा त क< ष्ण युदेवा किक लोश माँचा2र$ पुर पुड़ी$ था$ उसक शर$र पुर माँरन मिपुटन किक वाजाह स गेंम्$र चाट क कलो किनसन था जा माँ^न अपुन माँबइलो स किवाडी$यु रिरकडी2 किकयु जा माँर पुस ह0। देफी-13 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक क< ष्ण युदेवा किक माँ<त्यु पुलिलोस वालो क माँरन मिपुटन स आइ2 गेंम्$र चाट क करण थान क अन्देर हिह ह गेंयु$ था$। देफी-14 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक पुलिलोस वालो अपुन क बचान क लिलोए क< ष्ण युदेवा पुर झे„ठा माँकदेमाँ लोगें कर माँमाँलो किक लिलोपु पुत$ कर रह ह^। देफी-15 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत हूँK किक उक्त बत माँर 161 स$० आर० पु$० स$० क बयुन माँनत हुए सम्बन्धिE9त किवावाचाक क प्रमिर्षत करन किक क< पु कर। अत> श्री$माँन जा$ स अनर9 ह^ किक उक्त बयुन हलोफी- क माँर 161 स$० आर० पु$० स$० क बयुन क रूपु माँ देजा2 करन किक क< पु कर। Statements of Saraswati Devi सवा माँ, श्री$माँन जिजालोधि9कर$ / पुलिलोस अ9$क्षक जा4नपुर 82 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 किवार्षयु> माँ० अ० सK०-38/2021 अन्तगें2त 9र-302, 394, 504, 452, I.P.C थान-बक्श, जिजालो- जा4नपुर माँ 161 Cr.P.C क बयुन क सम्बE9 माँ- हलोफीनमाँ मिमाँनजाकिनब सरस्वात$ देवा$ पुत्न$ कितलोक9र$ उम्र त० 55 वार्ष2 स० माँ4०-चाकमिमाँजा2पुर, थान-बक्श, जिजालो-जा4नपुर हस्ब जा0लो ह0:- देफी-1 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक माँ^ उपुरक्त नमाँ वा पुत क- माँ लो किनवालिसन$ हूँK तथा माँर नमाँ वा वान्धिल्देयुत क कइ2 अन्यु माँहिहलो माँर माँ4जा माँ नह$ ह0। देफी-2 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक क< ष्ण युदेवा उफी2 पुजार$ माँर लोड़ीक था। देफी-3 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 क समाँयु लोगेंगें 3.00 बजा कर$ब$ स4र पुठाक नमाँ क लोड़ीक माँटरसइ2किकलो स माँर घर पुर आयु क< ष्ण युदेवा स कह चालो तम्ह एस० ओ० बक्श बक्श अजायु क माँर सिंसMह बलो रह ह^। माँन रडी पुर खड़ी ह0। जाब माँर लोड़ीक क< ष्ण स4र पुठाक गेंड़ी$ पु ब0ठाकर चालो गेंयु तब माँर बड़ी लोड़ीक अजायु वा चान्द्रबदेन $ क< ष्ण क पु$छ- पु$छ रडी पुर गेंयु था जाहK स पुलिलोस वालो माँर लोड़ीक क< ष्ण क अजायु वा चान्द्रबदेन क समाँन गेंड़ी$ माँ ब0ठाकर लोकर चालो गेंयु। देफी-4 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ माँर लोड़ीक क< ष्ण क लो जान क बदे हिदेनKक 11.02.2021 रकित्र 8.00 बजा माँ^ वा माँर पुरिरवार ओसर माँ ब0ठाकर बत चा$त कर रह था हमाँर$ छट$ बहु कमाँलो युदेवा क- तकिबयुत खरब हन क- वाजाह स घर क अन्देर सइ2 था$ किबन वाजाह क< ष्ण क पुलिलोस वालो क्यु लोकर गेंयु इस$ किवार्षयु माँ बत चा$त कर रह था। त$ थान एस० ओ० अजायु क माँर सिंसMह वा 10-12 पुलिलोस वालो क छ वादे@ माँ क छ सदे वादे@ माँ माँर घर पुर आयु और द्दी$- द्दी$ गेंलो$ देन लोगें माँर वा माँर पुरिरवार क पुछन पुर क- माँर बट कह ह0 त पुलिलोस वालो न गेंलो$ देत हुए बलो तम्हर लोड़ीक थान माँ ह0। देफी-5 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक माँर वा पुरिरवार वालो क किवार9 करन पुर बन्दूक हिदेखकर चापुकर हिदेयु और देरवाजा जार जार स मिपुटन लोगें अन्देर माँर$ छट$ बहु कमाँलो शर-गेंलो और देरवाजा जार-जार स पु$टन क- वाजाह स देरवाजा खलो त उसक द्दी$-द्दी$ गेंलो$ देत हुए हथा पुकड़ीक 9क्क देत हुए घर स बहर किनकलो हिदेयु घर माँ घसकर बक्श क तलो तड़ीकर बक्श माँ रख हुआ 60 हजार रुपुयु किनकलो लिलोयु और घर क अन्देर रख हुआ खन पु$न फी क हिदेयु और 9माँकत हुए वा द्दी$ द्दी$ गेंलो$ देत हुए बलो क- अगेंर तमाँ लोगें हल्लो गेंल्लो करगें त तमाँ सब क $ माँरगें और तम्हर लोड़ीक क जान स माँर देगें। जात समाँयु घर पुर रख$ अपुचा$ माँटरसइ2किकलो यु ० पु$० 62 ब$० एफी० 3621 उठा लो गेंयु। देफी-6 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक पुन> 11/12.02.2021 रकित्र 12.30 बजा माँर घर पुर वाह$ पुलिलोस वालो जा रकित्र 8.00 बजा आयु था वाह$ पुलिलोस वालो माँर$ लोड़ीक क< ष्ण युदेवा क घस$टत हुए घर पुर लोयु त माँर लोड़ीक ठा•क स खड़ी नह[ ह पु रह था। दे पुलिलोस वालो पुकड़ी हुए था। बहर पुड़ी$ चारपुइ2 पुर उस फी क हिदेयु। माँर लोड़ीक जार-जार स करह रह था माँK, माँK माँझे बचा लो। पुलिलोस वालो माँझे बहुत माँर ह0 और माँर$ हत्यु कर देगें घर माँ जा क छ पु0स ह लोकर इन्ह दे दे और माँर$ जान बचा लो। उसक बदे पुलिलोस वालो माँर लोड़ीक क बलो पुकड़ी कर चारपुइ2 स जामाँ$न पुर पुटक हिदेयु। देफी-7 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक पुलिलोस वालो स पुछ… सहब माँर लोड़ीक क- क्यु गेंलोत$ ह0 जा आपु इस इतन माँर ह0 और हमाँ गेंर$ब लोगें क क्यु सत रह ह^। किफीर पुलिलोस वालो द्दी$-द्दी$ गेंलो$ देत हुए माँर लोड़ीक क घस$टत हुए लोकर चालो गेंयु। और पुलिलोस वालो न बलो पु0स लोआ त$ तम्हर लोड़ीक क छड़ीगें नह[ त जान स माँर देगें। देफी-8 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक पुलिलोस वालो एस० ओ० बक्श वा एस० ओ० जा$० ट$माँ क लोगें द्वार माँर बट क- बर$ तरह स माँर पु$ट गेंयु ह0। जाब माँर बट माँर गेंयु त उसक- लोश सदेर 83 BAIL No. - 28849 of 2024 अस्पुतलो माँ लो जाकर रखकर गें गेंयु। युह बत हिदेनKक 12.02.2021 क- सबह गेंवा माँ अफीवाहन पुत चालो तब माँर बड़ी लोड़ीक अजायु स$० ओ० सदेर क युहK गेंयु वाहK स जानकर$ हुइ2 किक क< ष्ण क- लोश सदेर अस्पुतलो माँ ह0। हमाँ लोगें सदेर अस्पुतलो गेंयु माँर बट क- माँ<त शर$र माँरचार$ पुर पुड़ी था। देफी-9 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक माँर बट क< ष्ण उफी2 पुजार$ क- माँ<त्यु पुलिलोस वालो क द्वार माँरन पु$टन स हुइ2। अब पुलिलोस वालो द्वार माँर बट क ऊपुर झे ठा माँकदेमाँ करक माँनगेंढ़न्त कहन$ बन रह ह0 पुलिलोस वालो द्वार लो$पु-पुत$ क- जा रह$ ह0। देफी-10 माँ^ बहलोफी बयुन करत$ हूँ किक हलोफीनमाँ माँर किनजा$ ज्ञान माँ सचा वा सह$ ह0 न कइ2 बत झे ठा ह0 न चिछपुयु$ गेंयु$, इ2श्वार माँर$ माँदेदे कर। 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 policejunpur@gmail.com 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