Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 97 (ALL)

Kaju v. State of U. P.

2008-01-15

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2008
RAVINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS application has been filed by the applicant Raju with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case Crime No. 367 of 2007 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34 IPC, P. S. Nadigaon, district Jalaun. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story in brief is that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Ram babu Kushwaha on 5. 9. 2007 at 5. 20 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 5. 9. 2007 at about 4. 30 P. M. in which the applicant and four other co-accused persons are named as accused. It is alleged that on 5. 9. 2007 at about 4. 30 p. m. , Bahadur, ashok, the deceased Jabar Singh were going on motorcycle towards Parsani but in the way near the field of one Shiv Kumar the applicant, armed with licensed rifle, co-accused Swaroop Singh armed with rifle, co-accused Udai Veer armed with DBBL gun, the co-accused Pawan and Raghvendra armed with country made pistols discharged the shots, consequently the deceased and other persons started running towards the field leaving the motorcycle but the deceased jabar Singh was caught hold by the applicant and other co-accused persons, he Was beaten by the buts of the gun, when he became unconscious he was caught hold by the co-accused Swaroop Singh, Udai Veer Singh and Pawan thereafter a Mahendra Tractor was passed over consequently the deceased has died. According to the post-mortem examination report of the deceased, he has sustained nine injuries in which injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were lacerated wounds, injury no. 4 was abraded contusion, injury Nos. 8 and 9 were contusions and injury Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were abrasions. The applicant applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, jalaun at Orai who rejected the same on 7. 11. 2007. Being aggrieved from the order dated 7. 11. 2007 the applicant has moved the present bail application. ( 3 ) HEARD Sri U. C. Misra, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the state of U. P. and Sri Vikas Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant. ( 4 ) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that according to the FIR the first informant is also eyewitness and according to his statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. there was no eyewitness. ( 4 ) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that according to the FIR the first informant is also eyewitness and according to his statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. there was no eyewitness. The statement of the other alleged eyewitnesses Bahadur and Ashok were recorded after one month of the alleged incident. The delay in recording their statement shows that they have not seen the alleged occurrence. It is further contended that the prosecution story has not been witnessed by any person, it has taken place at a lonely place. The dead body of the deceased was found thereafter the present story was concocted and the FIR of this case is anti-timed. It is further contended that the prosecution story is not corroborated by the post-mortem examination report because none of the injury was caused crushed injury to show that the head of the deceased was crushed by the tractor as alleged by the prosecution. It is further contended that applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated due to village party bandi. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent, therefore, he may be released on bail. ( 5 ) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A. G. A. and learned counsel for the complainant that in the present case FIR has been promptly lodged, there is no material to show that the FIR was anti-timed. The alleged occurrence has taken place in the presence of the witnesses ashok and Bahadur, they have supported the prosecution version in their statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. the deceased Was murdered in a brutal manner by way of causing injury on his person by the buts of the gun. The delay in recording the statement of the witnesses does not affect the prosecution story adversely because the names of the witnesses were mentioned in the FIR which was lodged promptly. The deceased has sustained nine injuries which were caused by blunt object as alleged by the prosecution. The applicant and other co-accused persons are very powerful persons, they are having the terror in the locality, in case the applicant is released on bail he shall tamper with the evidence, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. The deceased has sustained nine injuries which were caused by blunt object as alleged by the prosecution. The applicant and other co-accused persons are very powerful persons, they are having the terror in the locality, in case the applicant is released on bail he shall tamper with the evidence, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the facts, circumstances of this case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A, learned Counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case the specific role of causing the injury is assigned to the applicant. The FIR has been promptly lodged. The manner in which the deceased was murdered was brutal and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly, this application is rejected. Application rejected. . .