Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1517 (ALL)

Satendra and Another v. State of U. P.

2011-06-27

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2011
Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants were falsely implicated along with the co-accused due to village rivalry since the applicant was against the present Pradhan who lodged the First Information Report. The First Information Report was not lodged by any of the injured and their family members. Apart from that the alleged incident took place on the day of Holi Festival on 20.3.2011. However, the First Information Report was lodged on 22.3.2011 by Pradhan who was not injured. As per allegation made in the First Information Report there was fire by licensee firearm of Ex-Pradhan Nanoo Singh. There was firing as well as assault with stones. According to the First Information Report four persons received injuries. There was incised wound on the eyebrow of Jaipal. According to the doctor's opinion it was caused by sharp edged weapon. It is not clear who has caused injuries to injured Surajpal. In fact there was quarrel in between them and they received injuries. Subsequently on consultation and legal advice the First Information Report was lodged by Pradhan against Ex-Pradhan and others including the applicant. The applicants have no criminal history. However, they are in jail since 16.4.2011. However, they are in jail since 28.4.2011. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that if the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that since applicants were involved in the incident hence they are not entitled for bail. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merit let the applicants Satendra and Dori Lal be enlarged on bail on their furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in Case Crime No.108/2011 under sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 307, 302 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, PS. Sikandrarau, District Hathras.