Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1006 (ALL)

ROHTASH @ KALA v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-03-26

VIRENDRA SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT VIREND.RA SINGH, J.-This application has been moved on behalf of Rohtash alias Kala, the accused applicant aforesaid for seeking bail in case crime No. 623 of 2008, under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 120-B I.P.c., P.S. Baghpat, District Baghpat. 2. As per prosecution case and submissions of learned AGA, the accused applicant committed murder of Charan Singh and Guljari in the night of 26/ 27.8.2008 at about 1 O'clock, thereby firing on them along with other co-accused persons witnessed by the complainant and other witnesses named Som Pal and Santosh Pal in the light of electricity. The deceased Charan Singh was the witness of an earlier occurrence alleged to have been occurred in the day time on the very same day i.e. on 26.8.2008 at 6.30 a.m. in which co-accused of this case named Manoj, Neeraj, Upendra, Satyapal @ Sonu and 3 other persons tmknown had attempted to commit murder of Sachin, Ankur and Santosh thereby firing on them and inflicting injuries on the person of Sachin. The accused/ applicant is hardened criminal having criminal history of 11 cases as is mentioned in the counter affidavit on behalf of State. 3. The tearried Counsel for the accused contended that in the alleged incident in the morning of the same day, the accused applicant has not been alleged as one of the assailant in the post-mortem report of deceased Guljari. the number of injuries have been shown as 1A, 1 B, 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B while as per injury report, only three gun shot injuries have been found on his person. In the site plan prepared by Investigating Officer neither light of electricity nor any other source of light is 'Shown The brother of the complaint Som Pal deposed that he had not seen one of co-accused Sundar alias Surendra amongst the accused person and his name was informed to him by Shishpal. The other eyewitnesses named Shispal and Harbinder Singh are not the eye-witness of the occurrence as they are alleged the witness merely of this fact that they had witnessed Manoj, Surendra @ Sundar, Manoj Sharma, Upendra alias Chipku and Nirajtalking with each other that Charan Singh should be eliminated. The accused applicant aforesaid has no motive or any kind of differences with the two deceased namely Charan Singh and Guljari and he was' not a . The accused applicant aforesaid has no motive or any kind of differences with the two deceased namely Charan Singh and Guljari and he was' not a . party even in the occurrence alleged to have been occurred in the day light. The real brother of the accused applicant aforesaid, Surendra @ Sunder the co-accused in this case was confined in Haryana Jail at the time of alleged occurrence and there is every possibility of false implication of the accused applicant aforesaid too in this case with his brother. The alleged criminal history of the accused applicant is very well explained and he remained on bail in all the cases against him falsely concocted. He has been acquitted too in three of the cases. Rest of the cases pending against the accused pertain to false implication of accused by the police merely for showing the kargujari by the police. 4. In the light of contentions of both the parties, after perusing the record, I am of this view that no one should be refused bail merely on the ground of his criminal history, if he is found to be enlarged on bail otherwise in the case. In this case since Surendra @ Sunder the brother of the accused is found falsely implicated being in jail at the time of occurrence alleged and since the applicant remained not even involved in the earlier concurrence alleged to have been occurred in the morning in which the deceased of this case is said to have been the witness, therefore I find it a fit case in which accused applicant should be enlarged on bail. Therefore this bail application is hereby allowed. 5. Let accused/applicant aforesaid be released on bail in aforesaid case Crime. on furnishing his personal bond with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- 1. That the accused shall abide himself in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed. 2. That the accused shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, and 3. That the accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 3. That the accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 3. That the accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or temper with the evidence.