Pratapgarh for causing the murder under a companyspiracy hatched by Raghuraj Pratap Singh, Akshay Pratap Singh and Udai Pratap Singh.
This regime after resuming the power revoked the order by an order dated 29.8.2003.
In SLP Crl 1521 of 2004, the High Court order dated 24.2.2004 was challenged whereby accused Akshay Pratap Singh Gopalji was granted bail in case No.10 of 2003, under Section 3/4 of POTA, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh, P. on his furnishing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/ with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, designated companyrt, Kanpur.
On 26th January, 2003 they recovered one 30 spring field self loading rifle, one 30 carbine, 11 cartridges of 30 spring field rifle and 30 cartridges of 30 carbine.
It is further alleged that when they entered into his bed room they found i 25 bullets of .75, .65 bores ii 16 bullets of 400 NITRO 1 bullet of .577 bore iv 3 other old rusted bullets which were number able to read v 12 bullets of .405 vi 35 bullets of 77 mm and 35 bullets which are old, rusted and number readable.
They further raided the mango gardens of Uday Pratap Singh from two clues given by Bhole Tewari.
Aggrieved this order, the present petition was filed by the appellant.
In the same bed room in another companyner 55 bullets .605 bore and 22 bullets of .22, two pieces of Motorola wireless set.
It was also disclosed that a companyspiracy was hatched by Uday Pratap Singh to cause a massacre and or to create terror after killing some VIPs.
It was alleged that these persons kept the huge arms and ammunition including AK 56/AK 47 in their house and whoever speaks against them meet the same fate.
On the western direction of the Raj Mahal Bhadri, at 200 mtrs from the western wall at the mango gardens of Uday Pratap Singh, the police discovered freshly dug mud.
Writ Petition Nos 132 134/2003 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is directed against the withdrawal of the POTA order by the State Government dated 29th August 2003 against accused Udai Pratap Singh, Raghuraj Pratap Singh Raja Bhaiya Akshay Pratap Singh Gapalji.
In a white companyton bag there was blue companyour polythene which companytained near about 400 gms suspicious brown companyour powder.
Meanwhile the accused also filed a review petition under Section 60 of POTA before the Reviewing Committee appointed under the POTA Act.
These huge catchy of arms were recovered on the raid by the police on 25/26th January 2003 and, therefore, an order under POTA was passed against all the three accused namely, Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiya, Udai Pratap Singh and Akshay Pratap Singh alias Gopalji by the State Government.
The petitioner has given details of the large number of criminal cases pending against these persons.
It was also alleged that after this statement he was murdered on 3.3.2003 and the father of the deceased filed an FIR No.16 of 2003 under Section 302/34/506/120B IPC in S. Kunda, Distt.
They found Uday Pratap Singh present in Raj Mahal where he was standing with one piece of AK 56 rife with black companyour belt hanging on his right shoulder.
totalling around 50 cases.
In SLP Crl 5609 of 2004, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the POTA Review Committee dated 30.4.2004 under Section 60 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 15 of 2002 hereinafter referred to as the POTA .
It was also alleged that they propose to take some action against Chief Minister Mayawati.
All this recovery of arms, ammunition and other weapons were detailed in the order.
Shri Raghuraj Pratap Singh is said to be involved in 37 cases for various offence under Sections 302, 307,147, 148, 120 B, 320 IPC.
A new regime came in power.
They also filed petition before the Central Government.
The order passed by the Government dated 29.8.2003 as well as application moved by the special public prosecutor before the Special Judge, Kanpur Nagar cannot be sustained and accordingly the order passed by the State Government and the application moved by the special public prosecutor before the Special Judge at Kanpur, both are rejected.
The receiver is machined from steel, the two lugged bolt locks into receiver walls.
It was also mentioned that the State Government is number serious.
On the basis of this, State Government granted permission to launch prosecution under Section 50 of the POTA Act to prosecute the accused persons namely, Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiya, Udai Pratap Singh and Akshay Pratap Singh alias Gopalji under Sections 3 2 , 3 3 , 3 7 and 4 of POTA Act by order dated 5.5.2003.
The petitioner has also given a chart mentioning the cases against Akshay Pratap Singh for the offence under Sections 302, 307 the Gangster Act and many other cases under Indian Penal Code totalling around 32 cases.
In this order it was mentioned that statement of one Shri Rajendra Yadav was recorded on 30.2.2003 wherein he stated that Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiyya and Akshay Pratap Singh alias Gopalji have brought AK 47 56 rifle and given it to Udai Pratap Singh.
The prosecution case as disclosed in recovery memo dated 25.1.2003 of 13.45 hrs lodged at P.S. Kunda by Paramhans Mishra, Inspector In charge, P.S. Kotwali Kunda that he along with informant and other police officials raided the house of Udai Pratap Singh for execution of warrant of arrest in crime No.
All the arguments were directed on whether the order passed by the Review Committee is sustainable in law or number.
But the decision on the numbere sheet was taken on 22.1.2003 and a companymunication was sent to the Government Press for publication of it on 23.1.2003 but in fact it was published as per the record of the Government Press on 29.1.2003 though it was dated numberification dated 23.1.2003.
The Reviewing Committee headed by Justice Naseem Uddin and Rajendra Kumar Dubey, ex Commissioner in P. reviewed the matter and held that since there is numbercase against the applicants under the POTA and numberprima facie case is found under Sections 3 and 4 of the POTA Act, therefore, there is numberbasis for proceeding against accused under POTA and the State of U.P. was directed to release all the three applicants.
After unloading the AK 56 rifle they found 36 bullets.
The petitioner has stated that there will be numberchance of fair trial in the State of U.P. as most of the witnesses are afraid to speak against the respondents and even one Shri Rajender Yadav was killed as he deposed against these persons.
This is the subject matter of the Special Leave Petition Crl 5069 of 2004.
After that they found a square wooden box yellow companyored polythene bag which companytained in it about 200 gms of explosive chips and in gray companyour polythene bag there was some suspicious black power.
The Union of India was also permitted to be impleaded as a party respondent.
113/2002 and 209/2002 under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 titled as State vs Udai Pratap Singh, Raghu Raj Pratap Singh Raja Bhaiya and Akshya Pratap Singh Gopalji pending in the companyrt of Special Judge Gangster Act , Allahabad, U.P. to the companyrt of Special Judge at Delhi or to any other companyrt at Delhi.
55/1993 under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act pending before Special Judge, Allahabad.
In the rifle, there was triangular sign on the butt with 56 written in between it, then something was written in Chinese language and the number was printed 1600232 and the weapon was in perfect companydition and on his shoulder there was a bag with three pieces of magazines of AK 56 rifle.
This order was challenged by the petitioner in the Writ Petition Crl 132 134 of 2003 under Article 32 of the Constitution before this Court.
After this order was passed by the State Government against the accused persons political events took a turn.
82 84/2004 have been filed by the petitioners apprehending that there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice in the State of U.P. seeking transfer of cases pending against the accused persons from the Special Judge, Kanpur Nagar U.P. to the Designated Court in Delhi In order to appreciate the companytroversy involved in the matter, it will be proper to take the first case i.e. SLP Crl 5609 of 2004 whereby the Review Committee reviewed the cases of all the three respondents i.e. Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiya, Udai Pratap Singh and Akshay Pratap Singh alias Gopalji under Section 3/4 of the POTA Act and directed the State Government to release all these accused persons and the proceedings against them shall deem to have been withdrawn from the date of this direction and they may be released from the custody forthwith under Section 3/ 4 of the POTA Act by order dated 30.4.2004.
It was also mentioned in the order that the said AK 56 rifle was brought by Raghuraj Pratap Singh in presence of Akshay Pratap Singh and was given to Shri Udai Pratap Singh.
Leave granted.
When the new Government came headed by Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav then this order was revoked under POTA as Raghuraj Pratap Singh supported this Government.
They entered through main gate and went inside the Raj Mahal premises where they found Shri Kesri Nandan, advocate, who told them that he is an advocate for civil cases of Uday Pratap Singh.
But numberaffidavit was filed by the respondents though they were made a party to the petition.
After digging 3 ft deep with length of 5 ft and width of 4 ft they discovered three polythene green bags and they also found i one DBBL gun ii another DBBL gun .12 bore another DBBL gun No.4136 C/1 iv another DBBL gun number destroyed v one rifle vi one SSBBL gun No.3077 1994 one SBBL gun number 12194 B.2 viii five pieces of SSBBL guns ix two pieces of Mauzre guns x two pieces of Muzzle loading guns xi thirteen pieces of swords xii two pieces of Hachet xiii two pieces of iron spears xiv one cane with companycealed sword xv one iron axe with cap and xvi one big knife with handle.
The State Government has already withdrawn the POTA cases against the accused persons and directed the public prosecutor to withdraw these cases.
P Crl Nos.
The petitioner has also given a chart of the cases pending against Uday Pratap Singh for various offences under Sections 302, 307, 397 etc.
When he was asked to produce the licence, he companyld number show anything number was he ready to tell them how he had acquired all these items.
