The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of Mukhtar Ansari Gang shooter Ramu Mallah.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Ramu Mallah.
The bail application under Section 439 CrPC has been filed with a prayer to grant bail to the accused applicant in Sessions Trial, arising out of Case under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 34 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, Police Station- Dakshin Tola, District- Mau.
The accused applicant is a dreaded criminal and member of most dreaded criminal gang of India i.e gang of Mukhtar Ansari. The accused applicant is facing several criminal cases of heinous offences.
In the case in which the accused applicant is seeking bail, besides him, Mukhtar Ansari and others are accused. Strangely, a co-ordinate bench of the Court enlarged such a criminal on bail in such a henious offence of murder vide order dated 08.05.2013.
The Court while rejecting the application of Mukhtar Ansari, a co- accused, who had filed Criminal Misc Bail Application and seeking bail in the case vide order dated 06.08.2018 expedited the trial of the case and directed the trial court to conclude the same preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of that order with a further observation that if there was no legal impediment.
Thereafter, in a second bail application being Criminal Misc Bail Application seeking bail in crime in question; the Court order dated 09.05.2019 again dismissed the said application of the co-accused.
After the Court expedited the trial and directed for its early conclusion, as a matter of strategy, the accused applicant absconded. Non-bailable warrants remained unserved and when the proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C were undertaken against the accused applicant, it was found that the address given by the accused applicant was false address and he was never residing at the said address.
A.G.A has taken specific objection in the Counter Affidavit dated 20.01.2022 filed in response to the supplementary affidavit dated 19.12.2020 filed on behalf of the accused-applicant and submitted that the accused applicant was not residing on the address which was shown in the police , trial court records i.e bail application, non-bailable warrants and bail bonds. He was not residing on the said address for the last 8-10 years. He had again mentioned the same address before the Court which has been found to be false and incorrect.
The documents got prepared by him i.e Voter Identity Card and Certificate issued by the Village Pradhan dated 03.12.2020, were verified and was found that the certificate issued by the Village Pradhan dated 03.12.2020 was a forged one.
The concerned police of the police station made a G.D entry dated 19.11.2021 stating therein that the accused applicant was not the resident of Village Chakpahad (Mahroopur), Post Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur, the address given in the application in the bail applied for which the Village Pradhan allegedly issued the certificate.
Thus, the accused applicant has not only strategically absconded the trial but also played fraud with the Court by giving false and incorrect address on the bail application/supplementary affidavit on behalf of the accused applicant and submitted forged certificate of Village Pradhan. In most of cases, the accused applicant has been acquitted as no one would dare to depose against such dreaded criminal. The witnesses either got wonover or made tired or eliminated.
A.G.A submitted that the accused applicant could secure the acquittal as the witnesses turned hostile. This is disturbing and perturbing phenomena and such dreaded criminal go scot free in several heinous offences inasmuch as dreaded criminals either winover the witness or make them tired or eliminate them.
For a sound, robust, free & fair criminal justice system, free, frank and fearless deposition of witnesses is of utmost importance. Free and fair trial and preservation of rule of law, is not possible, if the State does not give witnesses protection and support for their free, frank and fearless deposition. In India, it has been witnessed that because of threats to life, reputation, property of witnesses or family members or their harassment or intimidation by or on behalf of the accused, the witnesses turn hostile and accused go scot free.
The Court noted that,
The Supreme Court in the case of Mahender Chawla and Others Vs Union of India and Others reported in (2019) 14 SCC 615, has observed that over the last many years, criminal justice system in this country has been witnessing traumatic experience where the witnesses turn hostile, particularly, in those cases where the accused person/ criminals are tried for henious offences or where the accused persons are influential person or in dominating position. These accused make attempt to induce or intimidate the witnesses because of which the witnesses avoid coming Court or refrain from truthful deposition. The witnesses are reluctant to depose against people with muscle power, money power or political power, which has become the order of the day. Supreme Court has said that the witnesses are eyes and ears of justice, and if ultimately a truth is to be arrived at, they have to be protected so that interest of justice do not incapacitated in the sense of making the proceedings before the Court mere mock trials.
In State Vs Sanjeev Nanda reported in (2012) 8 SCC 450 after analyzing various cases, the Supreme Court listed following reasons which make witnesses detracting from statements before the Court and turn hostile: (i) threat/intimidation; (ii) Inducement by various means; (iii) Use of muscle and money power by the accused; (iv) Use of stock witnesses by protracted trial; (v) hassles faced by the witnesses during investigation and trial (vi) non-existence of any clear cut legislation to check hostility of witnesses.
Once the witnesses are not able to depose correctly in the court of law, it results in low rate of conviction and many times even the hardened criminals escape the conviction. Acquittal of a criminal in henious offences shakes the public confidence in criminal justice delivery system, the Court said.
“Merely since the accused has been acquitted as the witnesses have turned hostile in some of the cases, his criminal history, does not get evaporated. Such a criminal, if allowed to come out of jail, he would certainly be in a position to influence the witnesses and free, fair and truthful deposition of the witnesses, would be an impossible. Therefore, I find no substance in the submission of the counsel for the accused applicant that since the accused applicant has secured acquittal, he should be enlarged on bail”, the Court observed while rejecting the bail application.