Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2326 (ALL)

HARI OM v. STATE O

2007-09-10

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2007
RAVINDRA SINGH, J. This application has been filed by Dr. Hari Om with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case Crime No. 89 of 2006 under sections 323, 324, 325, 326 and 308, IPC, P. S. Fatehabad, district Agra. 2. . The fact in brief of this case are that the F. I. R. has been lodged by Sri Deoki Nandan Sharma on 4. 7. 2006 at 5. 05 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 30. 6. 2006 at about. 4. 00 p. m. against the applicant and three other co-accused persons alleging therein that on account of old enmity the applicant and three other co-accused persons who were armed with country made pistol, farsa, Sariya and lathi attacked on the injured. The applicant was armed with Farsa, co-accused Rajaram was armed with pistol, co-accused Subhas was armed with lathi and co-accused Mahesh was armed with sariya. The attack was made at the exhortation of the applicant. The injured Ram Ji Lal Sharma svistained the grievous injury, the condition became very serious, he was taken to S. N. Medical Collage, Agra where his medical treatment was done, thereafter the first informant went to the police station and lodged the F. I. R. According to the medical examination report the injured has sustained six injuries in which injury No. 1 was incised wound on the left side of parietcil region, injury No. 2 was also incised wound on the occipital region, injury Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were lacerated wounds. Injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp edge weapon. 3. Heard Sri D. N. Wali, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A and Sri A. B. L. Gaur, Senior Advocate assisted by Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the complainant. 4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case the F. I. R. is delayed by four days, there is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F. I. R. According to the prosecution version the applicant was armed with Farsa, the co-accused persons were armed with country made pistol, Lathi and Sariya. But according to the medical examination report the injury No. 6 was grievous in nature. It has not been caused by the applicant because it is a lacerated wound. But according to the medical examination report the injury No. 6 was grievous in nature. It has not been caused by the applicant because it is a lacerated wound. There is no motive or intention to the applicant to commit the alleged offence. The injured has been discharged from the hospital in a satisfactory condition even on the basis of the allegation made against the applicant no offence under sections 308 and 326 IPC is made out, at the most offence under section 324 IPC is made out. The applicant is a respectable person, he is having no criminal antecedent, he is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of the old enmity with the first informant. He is in jail since 17. 7. 2007. 5. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that on account of old enmity, in a pre-planned manner the applicant and other co-accused persons assaulted the injured. The applicant has caused injury by using Farsa whereas the co-accused caused injury by country made pistol, Lathi and Sariya. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The injured has sustained injuries. Injuries No. 1 and 2 are on the head caused by Farsa blows. The injuries are on the vital part of the body. According to the supplementary medical examination report the head injury is grievous in-nature and could be fatal to life. This injury was caused by the applicant. The charge-sheet has been submitted under sections 326 and 308 IPC. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall temper with evidence. 6. Considering the facts, circumstance of the case, submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. , learned Counsel for the complainant, it appears that the active role of causing the injury on the person of the injured by using the Farsa blows has been assigned to the applicant and the injury-caused by the applicant was grievous and dangerous to life. The alleged occurrence had taken place in the presence of the witnesses and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected. .