Parvez v. Union of India Thru. CBI

Court No. - 8 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3390 of 2023 Applicant :- Parvez Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Cbi Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Hari Krishna Verma,Kanchan Verma,Sanjeet Kumar Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶1Heard Sri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as S/Sri Anurag Kumar Singh and Akhilendra Singh, learned counsels for the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'CBI') and perused the record.

¶2This is the second bail application. First bail application got rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3005 of 2022 as not pressed.

¶3The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in Crime No.RCN 01(S)/2021, SC No.952 of 2021, under Sections 120-B, 302, 201, 420, 506/34 IPC, Police Station CBI SCI, New Delhi, District Lucknow.

¶3As per the case of the CBI, a missing complaint dated

23.12.2020 was filed by Shivam Keshari, son of Ramashankar Keshari, resident of K-64/48, Gola Dinanath, Varanasi through IGRS Portal of U.P. Government alleging there that his brother, Shubham Keshari had been missing from 7 PM on 22.12.2020. When no action was taken on the said application, Shivam Keshari filed applications before the District Magistrate on

26.12.2020, Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, Superintendent of Police (Crime) and also approached the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh. When whereabouts of his brother were not known, Shivam Keshari filed Habeas Corpus Petition No.1 of 2021 before this Court.

¶4After filing the Habeas Corpus Petition on 4.1.2021, the matter was listed before this Court on 5.1.2021 and on the same day, Police Station Kotwali, Varanasi registered a missing report and started inquiring into the allegations/facts mentioned in the complaints filed by Shivam Keshari. Later on, two dead bodies of Shubham Keshari and Ravi Pandey, who had also gone missing since 22.12.2020 and a missing report about him was lodged at Varanasi Police Station, were recovered on

15.1.2021 from a ditch near Hanuman Pahadi in the hilly area of Village Chhato, Police Station Ahraura, District Mirzapur by the police of Police Station Ahraura. Thereafter, a case under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was registered by the police of the Police Station Ahraura. Later on, it was found by the police of the Police Station Ahraura that these deceased belonged to Varanasi and missing reports of these persons were pending in District Varanasi and, therefore, the case was transferred from Ahraura, District Mirzapur to Varanasi. The case was re-registered in Police Station Kotwali, Varanasi as FIR No.6 of 2021 on 18.1.2021 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

¶5This Court vide order dated 8.2.2021 passed in Habeas Corpus Petition No.1 of 2021 directed the CBI to take up the investigation of FIR No.6 of 2021. The CBI took over the investigation of the case on 17.2.2021 and re-registered the case as RC SI 2021 S 0001. On conclusion of the investigation, the CBI filed the charge sheet on 16.4.2021 under Sections 120-B, 302, 201, 420, 506 and 34 IPC against Sunil Kumar Nigam, Neeraj Pandey, Parvez, Dilsher, Kareem Ansari and Guddu Bharadwaj for the murder of Shubham Keshari and Ravi Pandey, who were friends. The investigation of this case is kept open under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and the same is still not completed.

¶6As per the evidence collected by the CBI, it was Dilsher, who had contacted Shivam Keshari, brother of the deceased, Shubham Keshari and falsely informed him in conspiracy with co-accused Sunil Kumar Nigam that Shubham Keshari was taken by the police. Under this wrong impression made by accused, Dilsher, Shivam Keshari approached this Court by filing Habeas Corpus Petition. The CBI in its investigation, has established that Shubham Keshari was murdered by the accused persons in conspiracy and at the behest of co-accused Sunil Kumar Nigam. They had also murdered Ravi Pandey to eliminate the eye witness of the murder of Shubham Keshari, who accompanied Shubham Keshari at the place of occurrence.

¶7The accused persons after murdering Shubham Keshari and Ravi Pandey on 22.10.2020, arranged a vehicle through Guddu Bharadwaj for disposing of the dead bodies. In the early morning hours of 23.12.2020, the accused persons threw dead bodies in the hilly area of Police Station Ahraura, District Mirzapur and poured acid on the dead bodies to destroy the evidence.

¶8The accused-applicant appears to be a contract killer. No doubt, co-accused, Guddu Bharadwaj has been granted bail inasmuch as he had only given the vehicle to the accused persons, by which the two dead bodies were transported to Mirzapur for disposal without knowing the murder of the two deceased.

¶9Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the main accused, Sunil Kumar Nigam has been granted bail a coordinate Bench of this Court and, therefore, the accused-applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

¶10It is well settled law that parity is not an absolute ground for granting the bail. The Court has to consider the gravity of offence, heinousness of crime, societal impact and the evidence, prima facie, available against the accused. The gravity of offence and cruel nature, by which two persons were murdered and their dead bodies were thrown away and, thereafter, acid was poured on the dead bodies to destroy the evidence, is such that the act is not only cruel, but it is inhuman and beyond description of the perversity and human conduct.

¶11There is enough evidence collected by the CBI to prosecute the accused-applicant and other accused. Mere fact that a coordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail to co-accused, Sunil Kumar Nigam, would itself not be sufficient to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail. The accused-applicant and other accused had killed two persons for money. Apart from it, where these two persons were killed, the CBI had collected forensic evidence, including the DNA, which form part of the charge sheet submitted by the CBI. The DNA collected from the CBI where these two persons were killed, was matched with the DNA of the parents of the deceased.

¶12Looking at the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail at this stage.

¶13Second bail application is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 13.7.2023 Rao/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench