Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 687 (ALL)

Rajendra Kumar v. State of U. P.

2017-03-03

AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN

body2017
JUDGMENT Amar Singh Chauhan,J. Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Sri Deepak Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the informant and perused the record. By means of this application, the applicant Rajendra Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 254 of 2016, under sections 147, 148, 149, 364, 302, 307, 506, 120-B, 34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the First Information Report was lodged on 22.04.2016 with the allegation that the accused-applicant and other co-accused persons were indulged in preparation and selling illegal wines and the Officers of Excise Department have made raid and recovered the illegal wines. The accused-applicant and other co-accused persons were apprehending that the aforesaid act of Excise Department was made on the information given by the informant and due to this reason earlier in the day, the co-accused persons have mercilessly beaten the informant regarding which he has informed the police party and being aggrieved with the same in the night, when the informant alongwith his brothers namely Adesh alias Addu (deceased), Pankaj, Sravan Kumar and Kailash Nath (injured) as well as Pramod Kumar was sitting in front of his house then the accused persons armed with deadly weapons have come there in an Indigo Car and they have forcibly dragged away the brother of the informant namely Adesh alias Addu and after committing his brutal murder have thrown his dead body in the Maize field of Rambabu and when the informant and others have chased them then they have made fire which hits on the person of the injured persons. It is also alleged that the other accused with illegal firearms resorted to firing on the first informant and his family members out of which one shot hit the first informant's brother Pankaj while Sravan Kumar and Kailash Nath also received serious injuries. Adesh alias Addu succumbed to injury. It has come in the evidence of injured Pankaj under section 161 Cr.P.C. that the Anshu has fired with country made pistol which hits the injured. Adesh alias Addu succumbed to injury. It has come in the evidence of injured Pankaj under section 161 Cr.P.C. that the Anshu has fired with country made pistol which hits the injured. It is further submitted that applicant is not named in the First Information Report but during the course of the investigation after 15 days of occurrence, the I.O. has recorded the statement of witnesses namely Pankaj (injured witness) Kailash Nath and Pramod Kumar in which they have pointed out the complicity of the accused-applicant in the commission of the crime. It is also submitted that the applicant is said to have history of three criminal cases. In Case Crime No. 133 of 2016 under sections 323, 504 IPC and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act and in Case Crime No. 857 of 2014 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC, applicant has been granted bail by the court below but in Case Crime No. 416 of 2016 under section 3(1)(10) Gangster Act, the case is pending before the court below. It is lastly submitted that applicant is an old person aged about 57 years and suffering from old disease. False recovery has been shown by the Police from the pointing out of the applicant. No specific act has been assigned to the applicant and he has been falsely implicated due to enmity in this case. Per contra learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant objected the bail prayer of the applicant inter-alia on the ground that though the accused-applicant is not named in the FIR but the complicity of the accused-applicant in commission of the crime has come on surface in the statement of injured witnesses Kailash Nath, Pramod Kumar and Pankaj. The FIR is not the piece of evidence. Prima facie the applicant was armed with lathi and has used a lathi in causing injury to the deceased. As per post-mortem report, three contusions, two abrasions and one lacerated wound were found on the person of the deceased which are supposed to be caused by hard and blunt object. The Alakatal Lathi was recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. Applicant is the main assailant of the deceased and his case is not at par with the co-accused Brij Mohal, Vikas Kumar and Ankur alias Shubham who have been granted bail. It is also submitted that the applicant is a hardened criminal. The Alakatal Lathi was recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. Applicant is the main assailant of the deceased and his case is not at par with the co-accused Brij Mohal, Vikas Kumar and Ankur alias Shubham who have been granted bail. It is also submitted that the applicant is a hardened criminal. Hence there is no reason of false implication. Having considered the facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the offence, submission made on behalf of the parties, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.