Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3086 (ALL)

Ashish v. State Of U. P.

2009-09-09

VIJAY KUMAR VERMA

body2009
JUDGMENT: Vijay Kumar Verma, J. Heard Sri Rajul Bhargava and Sri Shashi Dhar Pandey, Advocates, appearing for the applicant and AGA for the State. 2. The allegations made in the FIR lodged on 16.04.2007 by Akhilesh Kumar at P.S. Hariparwat district Agra at case crime No. 350 of 2007, in brief, are that the accused Ashish and two more persons made attempt to commit the robbery of briefcase from the hand of complainant Akhilesh Kumar and also fired from their respective firearms, thereby causing injuries to Ramhet, due to which he died. Injuries are said to have been caused to Satish Chandra also. Further case of the prosecution is that applicant Ashish was apprehended on the spot along with revolver and country made pistol. 3. The first and foremost submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that although two firearms are said to have been recovered from the applicant at the time of his arrest on the spot, but no weapon was sent for ballistic examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, and hence it cannot be said that these weapons were used in the incident. 4. Next submission made by learned counsel is that there is no evidence to show that injuries to the deceased and the injured were caused by applicant alone and since three persons are said to have fired on the deceased, hence on this ground also, the applicant should be granted bail, because it cannot be said that applicant was the author of fatal injuries sustained by the deceased. 5. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.04.2007 and hence on the basis of long incarceration in jail also, he has entitled to be released on bail, as due to delay in trial his fundamental right of speedy trial envisaged under article 21 of the constitution is being violated. 6. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA contending that the applicant was apprehended on the spot with two firearms and he has also fired on the deceased Ramhet and hence in this heinous crime of robbery and committing the murder of one person, the applicant should not be granted bail. 7. 6. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA contending that the applicant was apprehended on the spot with two firearms and he has also fired on the deceased Ramhet and hence in this heinous crime of robbery and committing the murder of one person, the applicant should not be granted bail. 7. Further submission made by learned AGA is that the applicant has long criminal history of nine cases, out of which four cases are of robbery and one case is of murder and being on bail in those cases, he again has committed robbery and murder of innocent person, and hence by granting bail to the applicant, licence should not be given to him to commit further offence. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire material on record. There is sufficient prima facie evidence to show the complicity of the applicant in the incident, in which attempt of robbery was made and murder of one person were committed. The post-mortem report (annexure-2) shows that firearm injuries were found on the persons of the deceased at the time of post-mortem examination. The witness Satish Chandra had also sustained injuries in the incident. The applicant was apprehended on the spot along with two firearms. He also has long criminal history. Therefore, having regard to all these facts, but without expressing any opinion about merit of the case, in this heinous crime of making attempt of robbery and committing murder, the applicant does not deserve bail. 9. In my considered opinion, on the basis of long incarceration in jail also, the applicant cannot be released on bail. In this context, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008(68) ACC 115, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per-se illegal. If the accused has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. Consequently, the bail application is hereby rejected. 11. If the accused has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. Consequently, the bail application is hereby rejected. 11. The trial court concerned is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant and other accused persons within a period of six months making sincere efforts and applying the provisions of section 309 Cr.P.C. 12. S.S.P. Agra is also directed to depute special messenger to procure the attendance of rest witnesses after obtaining their summons from the court concerned and it must be ensured that all the witnesses are produced in session trial arising out of case crime No. 360 of 2007 of PS Hari Parwat, Agra, without causing any delay. 13. The office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the trial court concerned and S.S.P. Agra for necessary action.