Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1901 (ALL)

Hakim, Samrath v. State of U. P.

2005-09-28

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2005
RAVINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri Ajit Kumar Singh Solanki learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. ( 2 ) THIS application is filed by the applicant Hakim with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 73 of 2003, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326, 504, 506 and 341 I. P. C. and sections 2/3 of the UP. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P. S. Shergarh district Mathura. ( 3 ) FROM the perusal of the record, it reveals that in the present case the F. I. R. was lodged by shree Prakash at P. S. Shergarh on 13. 11. 2003 at about 2. 30 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 12. 11. 2003 at about 3. 00 p. m. The F. I. R. was lodged against the applicant and four other co-accused persons. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to prosecution version injured Dori lal the brother of the first informant was returning from Shergarh. He was caught hold by the applicant and other co-accused persons, who were armed with garansa, gun, country made pistol and lathi. He was overpowered by Raj veer Singh and Phool Singh and the applicant has cut both the hands of the injured by garansa and a garansa blow was used on the head of the injured. Thereafter, the accused persons left the place of the occurrence after extending a threat. The injured was taken to the hospital and was provided medical aid. It is contended that prior to six months of the alleged occurrence the same accused persons had looted the tractor of the injured. Its F. I. R. was also registered at P. S. Shergarh, but no proper action was taken by the police. ( 5 ) THE medical examination report shows that the injured was admitted in the hospital on 12. 11. 2003 at 6. 45 p. m. He had received three injuries caused by sharp edged weapon. All the injuries were grievous in nature and there was amputation of right arm at the level of mid forearm and amputation amputation of left arm at the level of wrist and there was incised and lacerated wound over face and scalp. ( 6 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case the F. I. R. is delayed. ( 6 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case the F. I. R. is delayed. It was lodged due to enmity and the applicant is in jail since 23. 11. 2003, but charge has not been framed till now. The case of the applicant is pending as Session Trial No. 110 of 2004 in the court of Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Agra and there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the trial in near future. The applicant is in jail without any order of conviction ( 7 ) IT is opposed by the learned A. G. A. by submitting that the applicant is main accused, who cut the both the hands of the injured and caused injuries on the head. The condition of the injured was very serious. Therefore, the medical aid was given first. Thereafter, the F. I. R. was lodged and according to medical examination report both the hands were amputated and injured had received injury over the face and scalp also. The injuries No. 2 and 3 were grievous in nature and the applicant was having a strong motive to commit the alleged offence because prior to alleged occurrence he has looted the tractor of the complainant in which the F. I. R. was lodged against him. It is further contended that the injured belongs to a weaker section of society, whereas the applicant is very powerful person of a criminal nature. If he will be released on bail he will not permit any witness to give evidence against him. ( 8 ) AFTER considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitle for bail at this stage. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, considering the period of detention of the applicant, the Special Judge (Gangsters act), Agra is directed to expedite the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 110 of 2004, State v. Phool Singh and Ors. without granting any unnecessary adjournments. ( 10 ) WITH this observation the bail application is finally disposed of. ( 11 ) THE office is directed to sent the order to the Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Agra for compliance. . .