Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 403 (ALL)

SHAMSUDDAHA ALIAS SHUROO v. STATE O

2008-02-21

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2008
RAVINDRA SINGH, J. application has been filed by the applicant Shamsuddaha alias Shuroo with a payer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 764 of 2007 under sections 147, 323, 452, 504, 506, 308 and 304 I. P. C. P. S. Chirraiyakot district Mau. 2. The facts in brief of this case are that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Masood Ahmad on 17. 10. 2007 at 6. 5 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 17. 10. 2007 at 6. 30 p. m. it is alleged that the first informants son Mohd. Idrees, Mohd. Khalid and his grand-son Saklain came to their house from the market after closing the shop at about 6. 30 p. m. , on 17. 10. 2007, the applicant and four other co-accused persons armed with iron rod and iron rambha came at the house of the first informant, they assaulted the first informant, deceased and the injured persons inside the house of the first informant. Consequently, the deceased Mohd. Khalid, injured Mohd Idrees had sustained serious injuries, after sustaining injuries, the deceased Mohd. Khalid fell down, on shouting the neighbour came in rescue, thereafter the F. I. R. was lodged at the police station concerned under sections 147, 323, 452, 308, 504 and 506 I. P. C. but subsequently, the deceased Mohd. Khalid succumbed to his injuries then the case was converted under section 304 I. P. C. also. According to the post-mortem examination report, the deceased has sustained 13 injuries caused by the blunt object and injured Mohd. Idrees had sustained 4 injuries caused by the blunt object, the applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Mau who rejected the same on 1. 11. 2007. 3. Heard Sri Arvind Tripathi and Neelam Tyagi, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and Sri V. P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Jag Narain, learned Counsel for the complainant. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence. According to the F. I. R. the role of exhortation is assigned to the applicant. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence. According to the F. I. R. the role of exhortation is assigned to the applicant. According to the medical examination report of the deceased he has sustained only 7 but according to the post-mortem examination report the deceased has sustained 13 injuries, there is variation in the number of injuries in the first medical examination report and the post-mortem examination report of the deceased, the injuries were caused by the applicant and four other co-accused persons by using iron rod and iron rambha, no specific weapon has been shown in the hand of the applicant. The applicant was having no motive or intention to commit the alleged offence. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent, therefore, he may be released on bail. 5. In reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A. G. A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant that in the present case F. I. R. has been lodged, the allegation against the applicant and other co-accused persons is that they caused injury by using iron rod and iron rambha, they are blunt object. The deceased has sustained all the injuries caused by hard and blunt object, the gravity of the offence is too much, the accused persons have committed the alleged offence by entering into the house of the deceased. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. According to the F. I. R. the role of exhortation as well as causing injury on the person of the deceased is attributed to the applicant. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. 6. Considering the facts, circumstance of the case and gravity of the offence and submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant, and without expressing any merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected. .