Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2374 (ALL)

Dinesh Yadav v. State of U. P.

2011-10-12

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2011
Ravindra Singh, J.:- Heard Sri Dileep Kumar and Sri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. Sri S.A.N.Shah and Sri Pushpendra Singh, learned counsel for the complainant. This bail application has been filed by the applicant Dinesh Yadav with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 138 of 2011 under sections 147,148,149,120-B,302,323 and 504 I.P.C. P.S. Jaithara district Etah. The facts in brief of this case are that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Smt. Munni Devi on 27.5.2011 at 9.30 a.m. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 27.5.2011 at about 6.00 a.m., the applicant and 7 other co-accused persons are named in the F.I.R. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the first informant Smt. Munni Devi and Smt. Amrit Shree wife of the co-accused Raghubir Singh had contested the election of village Pradhan due to which Smt. Amrit Shree and her family members had become inimical with the family of the first informant after Smt. Amrit Shree was elected, thereafter, threats of life was extended to the first informant and her husband on account of enmity, on 27.5.2011 at 6.00 a.m. the first informant along with her husband Niwas and daughter Km. Saraswati was going to Etah, as soon as they reached near the shop of Rakesh Dheemar on the road side way, the co-accused Raghubir, applicant Dinesh, co-accused Hardesh and the co-accused Pattu discharged the shots causing injury to the deceased, the other co-accused persons also discharged the shots at the deceased, on hearing the sound of firing Durgesh, Pinki and some other persons gathered at the place of occurrence. The deceased succumbed to his injuries, when he was on the way to the hospital. it is alleged that Smt. Amrit Shree hatched a conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased has sustained only one firearm wound of entry having its exit wound. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution story is false, concocted and highly improbable, the presence of the first informant at the place of occurrence was highly doubtful. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased has sustained only one firearm wound of entry having its exit wound. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution story is false, concocted and highly improbable, the presence of the first informant at the place of occurrence was highly doubtful. she has not sustained any injury whereas she had contested the election of the village Pardhan against the co-accused Amrit Shree, according to the F.I.R. itself the role of exhortation is assigned to the co-accused Raghubir and Ram Rais and the role of causing gun shot injury is assigned to the co-accused Hardesh and co-accused Divendra alias Pattu. According to the F.I.R. the applicant did not cause any injury to the deceased. It is alleged that the remaining co-accused persons also discharged the shots, the prosecution story is corroborated by the post mortem examination report because the deceased has sustained only one gun shot wound of entry it has not been specified as to whose shot hit the deceased but on account of village party bandi the applicant and his family members has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was having no motive or intention to commit the alleged offence. The applicant is a practising lawyer of district court Etah, he was having no concern with the alleged incident, he has been falsely implicated only to spoil his career because his mother Amrit Shree had contested the election against the first informant, she was elected, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. In reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant that the applicant was having strong motive to commit the alleged incident. The alleged incident has occurred in a broad day light, its F.I.R. has been lodged promptly within 3,1/2 hours, the distance of the police station was about 17 km from the alleged place of occurrence. The applicant and other co-accused persons were already sitting near the place of occurrence, they were waiting the arrival of the deceased, he has been killed so that he may not depose the evidence in a criminal case under section 307 I.P.C. in which 27.5.2011 was the date fixed i.e. day of the incident. The applicant and other co-accused persons were involved in case crime no. The applicant and other co-accused persons were involved in case crime no. 550 of 2007 under sections147,148,149,352,307,427 I.P.C. P.S. Jaithara district Etah in which the deceased was an eye witness, who was to be examined before the trial court on the date of the incident i.e. 27.5.2011 in S.T. No. 807 of 2008 pending in the court of leaned Additional Sessions Judge court no. 1 Etah, the applicant and other co-accused persons are having criminal back grounds, the applicant was involved in case crime no. 17 of 2003 under sections 147,148,307,323,504 506 I.P.C. P.S. Jaithara district Etah in which he has been acquitted and in case crime no. 550 of 2007 under sections 147,148149,353,307 I.P.C. P.S. Jaithara district Etah, the father Raghubir is involved in five criminal cases, his brother Hardesh is involved in six criminal cases, his brother Devendra alias Pattu is involved in four criminal cases, and other co-accused persons and their family members are also involved in several criminal cases. In the present case Km. Saraswati the daughter of the deceased was also medical examined, the alleged witnesses and the first informant are the natural witnesses, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence. In the present case Km. Saraswati the daughter of the deceased was also medical examined, the alleged witnesses and the first informant are the natural witnesses, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record it appears that it is case in which the deceased was a witness in S.T. No. 7 of 2008, under sections 147,148,149,352,307 and 427 I.P.C. his evidence was to be recorded on 27.5.2011, in that case the statement of P.W.1,P.W.2 and P.W.3 were recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Court no.1 Etah, according to the order sheet dated 26.6.2011 for remaining evidence 27.5.2011 was fixed, the deceased left his house in the morning on 27.5.2011, at about 6.00 a.m. in the company of his wife and daughter, as soon as she came in front of the shop of Rajesh Dheemar where the applicant and other co-accused persons were already present with their firearm and the deceased has been killed thought the deceased has sustained one gun shot wound of entry and it has been specified that the gun shot injury was caused by Hardesh and Devendra at the exhortation of the co-accused Raghubir and Ram Rais but it is further alleged that the other co-accused persons have also discharged the shot upon the deceased, the applicant was also facing the trial in S.T. No. 8 of 2007 in which the deceased was a witness, his statement was to be recorded on 27.5.2011, but before recording his statement he has been killed, the gravity of the offence is too much in such cases, no lenient view can be taken, on the basis of the rule attributed to the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence to ensure the fair trial, it is not proper to release the applicant on bail, and 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 bail application is rejected.