Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2171 (ALL)

Pushpendra v. State Of U. P.

2019-09-18

B.AMIT STHALEKAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : B. Amit Sthalekar, J. Heard Shri Ravi Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that Dharam Singh alongwith his brother Dal Chand was taken by the accused persons Pushpendra, Gaurav, Hari Singh and Deopal and when they entered into the house of Deopal, Pushpendra appellant and other accused persons started firing indiscriminately upon them with the result that the shot fired by Pushpendra hit his brother Dal Chand. It is also stated that because of the indiscriminate firing they ran away to save themselves. Dead body of Dal Chand was lying on the spot where the incident occurred. In the post mortem report two fire arm ante mortem injuries have been mentioned and the cause of death has been stated to be due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of fire arm injuries. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that one of the co-accused Gaurav has been granted bail by this court on 18.5.2018. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. 6. Prima-Facie from the documents on record I find that there is a clear averment in the F.I.R. that the shot fired by Pushpendra hit the deceased resulting in his death. This statement is further corroborated by the statement of Kishan Pal in which he has stated that there was some quarrel between Pushpendra and Dal Chand, the deceased and they were grappling with each other and Deopal caught hold of Dal Chand to prevent a fight between them and at this point of time Gaurav and Pushpendra fired from their respective country made pistol killing Dal Chand. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant therefore tried to show that the allegation of murder of the deceased was against Gaurav and Pushpendra and Gaurav has been granted bail by this court therefore Pushpendra is also entitled for bail. 8. I have seen the order of the co-accused Gaurav and find that while granting bail to Gaurav this court has noted that role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Pushpendra, the present applicant, and there are general allegations against the other accused persons. In the F.I.R. there is a clear mention that the shot fired by Pushpendra hit the deceased resulting in his death. 9. In the F.I.R. there is a clear mention that the shot fired by Pushpendra hit the deceased resulting in his death. 9. Considering these facts and the role of the applicant and the post mortem injuries which also mentions the cause of death of the deceased as a result of fire arm injuries, in my opinion, no case for grant of bail is made out. 10. Accordingly the bail application is rejected.