Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2661 (ALL)

Rajpal @ Bhooti v. State of U. P.

2015-08-28

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2015
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. Shri Gaurav Kakkar, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of the complainant, today in the Court, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. 3. Perused the record. 4. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that though in the F.I.R. a general allegation of making assault with lathi, danda, bhala and ballam has been assigned but during the course of statement given by injured Mahindri it was specifically stated that co-accused Mukesh was armed with a spear and another co-accused Sonu was armed with ballam and rest of the co-accused were armed with lathi-danda. Further submission is that even according to the statement of another witness Vinod, the applicant was armed with blunt weapon lathi. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the post-mortem report of the deceased which indicates that one incised wound and one penetrating wound were caused to the deceased which, according to the counsel, can be caused only by a sharp edged weapon. Contention is that in this background it is clear that the applicant is not the author of any of the injuries received by the deceased. Next submission is that the other two witnesses, who are said to have received injuries in this occurrence, have received simple injuries in which one injured Sandeep is said to have received four abrasions while another injured Mahindri is said to have received one contusion and has reported the complaint of pain on his back. Submission in this regard is that the injuries received by the alleged injured witnesses also indicate that those injuries though obviously can be caused by blunt weapon but the nature of the injuries is simple and it cannot be said that person, who inflicted these injuries on the injured persons, had any serious intention to commit the murder. It is argued by the counsel that in this background of the facts, the case of the applicant becomes distinguishable from the aforesaid other two co-accused who are said to have made serious assault by sharp edged weapons and are obviously responsible for causing the death of the deceased. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 5.6.2015 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. It is also pointed out that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. 5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main motive behind committing this offence can be attributed to the applicant himself and the injuries received by the injured persons is an indication that it was a concerted assault in a preplanned manner, and therefore, everybody should be held liable vicariously. 6. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant whose case is distinguishable from co-accused Mukesh and Sonu, may be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant-Rajpal @ Bhooti, involved in Case Crime No.320 of 2015, u/s 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of I.P.C., P.S.-Deoband, District-Saharanpur be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions : - (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. 8. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. 8. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 9. 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.