Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1888 (ALL)

VEER SINGH v. STATE OF U P

2006-08-07

VINOD PRASAD

body2006
VINOD PRASAD, J. The applicant seeks bail in crime number 498 of 2005, under Sections 302/506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, police station Jeanpur District Azamgarh. 2. The synopsised allegation of the prosecution against the applicant is that on 6-11-2005 at 8 p. m. when the informant Ram Narain Singh alongwith his uncle and aunt Paras Nath Singh and Smt. Maina Devi (village Pradhan) were going to participate in the recital of Ramayan at Hanuman temple carrying a torch with them and when they reached near the PCO of Ravindra Patel then all of a sudden the applicant accused alongwith co-accused Damalu, Umesh, Hemant @ Bablu sprang up armed with country made pistol from the place where they laid in ambush and blocked the way of the informant and others. Hemant and Umesh caught hold of the deceased Paras Nath Singh on the instigation of Damalu and the applicant shot him from behind which shot hit him on the back. The informant tried to catch the culprits but they escaped firing in the air. Many people participating in the recital of Ramayan collected there alongwith many villagers. The deceased was carried to the hospital in a Marshal Jeep but he was declared dead by the doctor. The motive alleged was the election rivalry where the accused pressurised the deceased to ask Maina Devi to withdraw from the election of village Pradhan but he did not do so and Smt. Maina Devi had contested the election and had won. 3. Heard Sri Lav Srivastav, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri B. N. Pandey learned Counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA in opposition. 4. The Counsel for the applicant submitted that it is case of hit and run from behind in the wintry dark night where there was no source of light and no body had seen the assailant and after the deceased was shot at that the witnesses reached at the spot and then the prosecution case was cooked up by the informant. He contended that neither Maina Devi nor the informant were present on the spot. He contended that neither Maina Devi nor the informant were present on the spot. He submitted that had Maina Devi been present on the spot she would have been first to be attacked as she was main target and she would not have been spared to be a witness of the incident by those accused who had chosen the dark hour of night to commit the crime so that they are not identified and moreover she would have in any case accompanied her husband to the hospital to get him the best treatment done and would not have left him alone in such a critical condition. He further submitted that but for the informant all other witnesses who were interrogated by the I. O. on the date of the incident and who reached on the spot immediately after the incident have said that when they reached on the spot they were told that the deceased was shot at by unknown persons. These witnesses are Ram Lakhan, Man Singh, Katwaru and Vinod Singh. He further submitted that statement of Smt. Maina Devi was recorded after a gap of five days and had she been present she would have been interrogated on the date of the incident itself. He further submitted that in the site plan the deceased has been shown to have been shot at in the way between two fields in an open place and not at the place alleged in the FIR and no source of light is shown in the site plan on the spot nor any blood is shown to have been found on the spot. He further submitted that till inquest report was done the FIR was not in existence and that is why inquest report do not contain crime number sections etc. and the time of lodging of FIR is also different and it is because of cooking of F. I. R. that the inquest report was delayed and was conducted next day at 11 a. m. He further contended that the allegation of surrounding by the prosecution is absurd and in the dark night some body had fired a single shot at the deceased from behind and shot him dead and no body had seen the incident and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. 5. 5. Learned AGA as well as Counsel for the informant submitted that in this case the applicant is named in the FIR as the main assailant and that he had the motive to commit the murder of the deceased, as he had not adhered to his request. They further submitted that there was the light of the PCO and of the place where the Ramayan was being recited. They further submitted that the deceased was shot at from point blank range and that the post-mortem report is consistent with the prosecution case. They further submitted that because the wife was not in a fit state of her mind, therefore, her statement was delayed in being recorded. 6. I have given my anxious consideration on the rival contentions and the material on record. It is not disputed that it is a night incident and that the deceased has received only one injury on the back and that the wife of the deceased did not receive any injury nor she accompanied the deceased to the hospital. It is also not disputed that the statement of the wife of the deceased was recorded after a gap of five day and the other witnesses examined on the date of incident have said that they were told that some body had shot dead the deceased. These witnesses had reached the spot immediately after hearing the gunfire and the deceased was taken to the hospital in their presence. It is also not disputed that in the site plan no source of light is shown nor any blood has been shown nor the place were Ramayan was being recited is shown. Moreover, it is shown in the site plan that the accused had come from front and shot dead the deceased but the deceased had gun shot wound of entry on the back. 7. With out adverting over the merits of the matter any further I consider it appropriate to release the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime number. 8. Let applicant Veer Singh be released on bail in crime number 498, of 2005 under Sections 302/506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, police station Jeanpur District Azamgarh on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM Azamgarh. 8. Let applicant Veer Singh be released on bail in crime number 498, of 2005 under Sections 302/506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, police station Jeanpur District Azamgarh on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM Azamgarh. He is further directed to report to the police station concerned every month at a date and time to be fixed by the Officer-in-charge of the said police station. He will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and co-operate with the trial. Application allowed. .