Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3496 (ALL)

VIPIN SHARMA v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-11-12

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT RAVINDRA SINGH, J.-Heard Shri Kshitij Shailendra, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned AG.A for the State of U.P. This is a bail application has been moved by the applicant Vipin Sharma with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 934 of 2009, under section I 302 IPC, State v. Vipin Sharma, P.S. Najibabad, district-Bijnor. 2. The facts, in brief, of this case are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Adesh Kumar on 4.4.2009 at 11.30. p.m. in respect of the alleged incident occurred on 4.4.2009 at about 10.00 p.m. The alleged incident had taken place in the Jungle/5ikanderpur Wasi. The distance of the police station was about 7 k.m. from the alleged place of the occurrence. It is alleged that the deceased Raju, the brother of the first informant was doing the work of worship. The applicant and his associate co-accused Anshu Thakur also came in the Jungle and demanded his money from the deceased Raju, because he had taken Rs. 3,000/- from the applicant as debt. The deceased tried to avoid to make the payment then the applicant taken out a country made pistol. It was opposed by the first informant Mahendra and Neetu then the co-accused Anshu Thakur also taken out a country-made pistol. The applicant discharged shot at the deceased Raju and the co-accused' Anshu Thakur discharged shot at the deceased Neetu. Both of them died instantaneously. According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased Raju had sustained gun shot wound of entry on the right side of forehead and the exit wound of entry was injury No.2. The injury No.3 was gun shot wound of entry on the left side of back. The exit wound of entry was injury No.4. Both the gun shot wounds of entry were having the blackening. The deceased Neetu had one lacerated wound 25 cm. x 10 cm., extending from the left side of nose to middle of forehead, middle of head, back of head. The applicant applied for bail before learned In charge Sessions Judge, Bijnor, the same was refused on 29.4.2009. It is contended by the learned applicant that the alleged occurrence had taken place in. the dark night in the Jungle. The murder has been• committed by some unknown miscreants. The applicant has been falsely implicated only on the basis of the doubt and suspicion. It is contended by the learned applicant that the alleged occurrence had taken place in. the dark night in the Jungle. The murder has been• committed by some unknown miscreants. The applicant has been falsely implicated only on the basis of the doubt and suspicion. According to the prosecution version the shot was discharged by the applicant, which hit the deceased Raju, the co-accused Anshu Thakur discharged a shot, which hit the deceased Neetu. The version of the F.I.R. has been followed by the witnesses in their statements, recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, but it has been .specified that the applicant has caused the gun shot injury from a close range on the head of the deceased Raju. Whereas according to the post mortem examination report, the deceased Raju had sustained two gun shot wounds of entry at different places that is on head and back side of the deceased. There is explanation of gun shot wound of entry, which was on the left side of the back side, having its exit wound. Neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statements, recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. It has been mentioned that any of the accused has caused the injury on the left side of the back of the deceased Raju. It shows that none of the witness was present at the place of alleged occurrence. The dead bodies of the deceased Raju and Neetu were found thereafter. The F.I.R. of this case has been lodged only on the basis of doubt and suspicious due to ill-will of the first informant. The deceased Raju was a person of the bad character and he was involved in some suspicious activities. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedents. He is in jail since 9.4.2009, he may be released on bail. 3. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the applicant and co-accused Anshu Thakur are named in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. has been promptly lodged within a period of one and half hours. The alleged occurrence has taken place in the dark night in the Jungle, but the first informant and other witnesses were present there. The witness Mahendra tried to apprehend the accused persons, a butt blow of the country-made pistol was used by the accused persons on his head, causing injury on his person. The alleged occurrence has taken place in the dark night in the Jungle, but the first informant and other witnesses were present there. The witness Mahendra tried to apprehend the accused persons, a butt blow of the country-made pistol was used by the accused persons on his head, causing injury on his person. There is no material contradiction in the F.I.R. and post-mortem examination report of deceased Raju. It has not been alleged that only one shot was discharged. It is alleged that the applicant and co-accused Anshu Thakur discharged shots. The same statement has been given by the witnesses in their statements, recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Though it has been stated by first informant Adesh Kumar that the applicant put his country-made pistol near I the head. He and co-accused Anshu Thakur discharged the shots. Consequently, both the deceased sustained injuries' and died instantaneously. It is a case, in which two persons have been shot dead. The deceased was having criminal background. There was no reason of false implication, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant,-learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the record, it appears that in the present case, it has been specifically alleged that the applicant and co-accused Anshu Thakur discharged the shots by their country-made pistol. Though, it has not been specifically alleged that who caused the gun shot wounds of entry on the left side of the deceased Raju. At this stage, where the allegation has been made against the applicant and co-accused discharging the shots by country-made pistols, causing the injuries on the persons of the deceased from the close range, is not proper to release of the applicant on bail. The gravity of the offence is too much. The F.I.R. has been promptly lodged. The witnesses alleged at the place of occurrence, which has been shown. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly, this application is rejected. Bail Refused.