Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3207 (ALL)

Lachhman v. State of U. P.

2010-10-19

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2010
Ravindra Singh, J.:- This is third bail application moved by the applicant Lachhman with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 773 of 2007 under sections 147,148,149,302,307 and 506 I.P.C. P.S. Kosi Kalan district Mahura. 2. The criminal misc. first bail application No. 6062 of 2008 has been rejected by his court on 13.3.2008 considering the merits of the case, criminal misc. second bail application no. 15048 of 2008 has been rejected by this court on 19.8.2008 after considering the merits of the case. 3. Heard Sri W.H.Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri J.H.Khan, Sri Gulrez Khan and Sri Pramod Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. It is contents by the learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged on 24.12.2007 at 11.50 p.m. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 24.12.2007 at about 10.30 a.m., the applicant and the co-accused persons namely Raghubir, Bhupal, Padam, Vijendra and Nawal, are named in the F.I.R. It is alleged that on 24.12.2007 the deceased Chhiddi Singh, father of the first informant along with his son Gajendra and niece Sunita, was going on a motorcycle from village Raghunagar to Kosi Kalan, at about 10.30 a.m. when they reached on the turning of Ladenwali Kuiyan where the applicant and others co-accused persons were already sitting and watching the arrival of the deceased the co-accused used Pharsa blow on the person of the deceased consequently, the motorcycle fell down, then the applicant used rope by putting it on the neck of the deceased and asked to commit his murder, on his exhortation the co-accused Bhupal and Padam discharges shots by their country made pistol which hit on the chest and foot, the co-accused Vrijendra also discharged shot by country made pistol, which hit on the foot of the deceased, the co-accused Nawal used Pharsa blow on the head of the deceased, the deceased tried to save himself from Pharsa blow but his hand was cut, on the hue and cry of the brother and sister of the first informant, the first informant and his uncle Govind Ram came at the place of occurrence. The first informant was also caught by the co-accused persons who tried to strangulate him by using rope, some other persons also came at the place of occurrence who save his life, the co-accused extending the threat of life fled away towards Jangle. The alleged occurrence has taken place on account of old enmity and litigation. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased has sustained eight ante mortem injuries in which the injury nos.1,2,3,4,5 and 6 are incised wounds, injury no.7 is gunshot wound of entry on front of abdomen and injury no. 8 is the ligature mark 32 cm x 2.5cm transversly placed all around the neck below thyroid cartilage, the cause of death was as a result of ante mortem injuries. The other co-accused namely Vijendra has been released on bail by this court on 20.2.2008 in criminal misc. bail application no. 4892 of 2008, the co-accused Bhupal has been released on bail by another bench of this court on 28.4.2008 in criminal misc. bail application no. 11470 of 2008, the co-accused Padam has been released on bail by another bench of this court on 3.6.2008 in criminal misc. bail application no. 15049 of 2008, the co-accused Nawal has been released on bail by another bench of this Court 4.7.2008 in criminal misc. bail application no. 13402 of 2008 and the co-accused Raghubir has been released on bail by another bench of this Court on 27.7.2008 in criminal misc. bail application the applicant is also entitled to get the benefits of parity with the above mentioned co-accused, who have been released on bail. The applicant is in jail since 3.1.2008, there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the trial in near future. The applicant is not a previous convict. 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 the case of the applicant is not based on the same footing with the case of other co-accused persons, who have been released on bail. The co-accused have been released on bail after considering the post mortem examination report and their role assigned in causing the injury on the person of the deceased. The co-accused have been released on bail after considering the post mortem examination report and their role assigned in causing the injury on the person of the deceased. According to the prosecution version the co-accused Bhupal, Padam and Vijendra discharged the shots by their country made pistols causing injury on the person of the deceased but according to the post mortem examination report, the deceased had sustained only 1 injury, caused by the firearm, it has not been specified as to whose shot hit the deceased that is why the benefits of bail has been given to all the three co-accused persons, who allegedly discharged shots. The co-accused Nawal has been released on bail mainly on the ground that according to the prosecution version he used Pharsa blow on the head of the deceased but no internal damage was caused by the incised wound of the head, on this ground alone benefit of releasing him on bail has been extended to the co-accused Nawal and the co-accused Raghubir has been released on bail only on the ground that the co-accused Nawal has been granted bail on 4.7.2008, the case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of the above mentioned co-accused persons because active role of using the rope by putting it on the neck of the deceased to strangulate him has been assigned to the applicant and it has been corroborated by the post mortem examination report, the benefit of parity may not be available to the applicant, the trial of the applicant is at the advance stage, the statement of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have been recorded. In this case the co-accused who have been released on bail are adopting all the methods of lingering on the proceedings of the trial, adjournments applicants are moved on their behalf. In case the applicant is released on bail, he may interfere in the proceedings of the trial, theretofore, he may not be released on bail. 6. In this case the co-accused who have been released on bail are adopting all the methods of lingering on the proceedings of the trial, adjournments applicants are moved on their behalf. In case the applicant is released on bail, he may interfere in the proceedings of the trial, theretofore, he may not be released on bail. 6. Considering the facts, circumstance of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record it appears that this application has been mainly moved on the ground that other co-accused persons have been released on bail, so the applicant may also be released on bail on the ground of parity, the orders by which the other co-accused persons have been released on bail shows that the benefits of release on bail, has been extended to them on the basis of some discrepancy in their role assigned and in the ante mortem injuries sustained by the deceased, no such benefits may be extended to the applicant because the role attributed to the applicant is corroborated by the post mortem examination report. The applicant is not entitled to get the benefit of parity with other co-accused persons. The trial is in progress where P.W. 1 has been cross examined and examination in chief of P.W. 2 has been recoded. There is no other ground also to release the applicant on bail, the prayer for bail is refused. 7. However, considering the period of detention and the stage of the trial, it is directed that the proceedings of S.T. No. 173 of 2008 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Court No.1 shall be expedited without granting unnecessary adjustment to either of the side, the same shall be commenced, if possible, on day to day basis. 8. With this direction this application is finally disposed of.