Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1405 (ALL)

Mukund Singh v. State of U. P.

2015-05-27

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2015
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 571 of 2014 u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 506 IPC P.S. Goverdhan District Mathura. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 3. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the fire arm injuries caused to the injured Manish by the applicant are simple in nature, therefore, the offence? u/s 307 IPC would not be constituted. No other submission has been raised. 4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and have drawn the attention of the court to the medical examination as well as supplementary report and X-ray report of Manish injured. Submission is that there is specific allegation against the applicant to have caused fire arm injury to the injured Manish. It has been further pointed out that the X-ray report would indicate that there were multiple radio opaque shadows of metallic density found in the upper part of the neck. Submission is that the neck is most vital part of the body and if the firing was done having its aim on the neck and even the shots entered the neck then it is only a matter of co-incidence that the victim still survived. Contention is that the applicant could not have had any control upon the velocity of pellets or the actual damage which they would cause to the victim. So far as the overt act on the part of the applicant is concerned he did all what he could to cause victim's death. The survival of the victim is an act of Providence, according to learned AGA. Apart from this it has also been brought to the notice of the court that the applicant is having a chequered criminal history of ten cases to mar his character out of which three cases are u/s 307 IPC against him. Learned AGA further submitted that the period of detention of the applicant is not so long that the same may become a ground to release the applicant on bail at this stage. 5. Record has been perused in the light of the rival submission made at the bar. 6. Learned AGA further submitted that the period of detention of the applicant is not so long that the same may become a ground to release the applicant on bail at this stage. 5. Record has been perused in the light of the rival submission made at the bar. 6. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected. 7. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.