Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3618 (ALL)

PINTU @ PAWAN v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-11-30

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Singh, J.—This bail application has been filed by the applicant Pintu alias Pawan with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 194 of 2009, under Section 302, I.P.C., Police Station Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar. 2. The facts, in brief, of this case are that the information was given to the police station concerned by Ashok Kumar on 24.5.2005 at 8.30 a.m. that the dead body of the deceased was lying on a road side, on that information, the police came at the place of occurrence and inquest report was prepared and dead body was sent to post mortem examination. The dead body of the deceased could not be identified by that time. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had sustained ante mortem fire arm wound of entry having its exit wound, thereafter on 25.5.2009 an application was given by Ram Kumar at police station Jahangirabad alleging therein that on 23.5.2009 at about 10.00 a.m., his son Devendra along with Amit alias Citi had gone from his house to purchase seeds but he did not return upto to evening, on search, he was informed by Shreya that he saw the deceased Devendra when he was going on motor cycle which was driven by the applicant, the co-accused Amit @ Citi was also a pillion rider of the same motor cycle, thereafter, the first informant Ram Kumar came to the house of Amit but he was not present at his house , he was informed by one Girish Chandra that in a paper the information was published that a dead body of a person was recovered from the area of police station Jahangirabad on that information, he came to Bulandshahar and saw the dead body at the Mortuary and identified the dead body of the deceased Devendra, it is alleged that on account of pendency of the litigation with the applicant, the deceased had been murdered. 3. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.for the State of U.P. and Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR. 3. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.for the State of U.P. and Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The dead body of the deceased as unknown was found lying on the road side, thereafter, the inquest report and post mortem examination report were prepared as of unknown dead body but on the next day of the post mortem examination, the FIR has been lodged. There is no direct eye witness account, the only evidence of last seen is against the applicant, the deceased was having enmity with the applicant, in such circumstances, the presence of the applicant on the same motor cycle along with the deceased was highly doubtful. The recovery of the country made pistol at the pointing out of the the applicant was planted on 18.7.2009, it is not supported by any independent witness. The applicant has been falsely implicated due to ill will of the first informant. The applicant is in jail since 22.6.2009. 5. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that the deceased of this case was the pairokar of S.T.No. 883 of 2008 under Section 307, I.P.C. in which the brother of the deceased had sustained injury. The applicant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307, I.P.C. by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC 19, Bulandshahar on 22.6.2009 but the applicant deliberately did not appear before the Court concerned, thereafter he committed the murder of the deceased in a pre-planned manner only because he was pairokar of the earlier case, thereafter, he surrendered before the Court concerned. The order dated 22.6.2009, by which the applicant has been convicted, has been challenged before this Court by way of filing criminal appeal No. 4358 of 2009 in which the applicant has been released on bail vide order dated 16.9.2009, it has been wrongly mentioned in this bail application that the applicant is in jail since 22.6.2009, in fact, he surrendered before the Court concerned on 25.5.2009 at the pointing out of the applicant, the country made pistol was recovered on 18.7.2009, in such circumstances, the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. 6. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and Counsel for the complainant, considering the fact that the applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307, I.P.C. by Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC 19, Bulandshahar in ST No. 883 of 2008 in which the brother of the deceased was victim and on the date of the pronouncement of the judgement holding the guilty to the applicant, he did not appear before the Court concerned but he appeared in Court concerned on 25.6.2009, in the meantime, the deceased was murdered, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused 7. Accordingly this application is rejected. ————