Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DAYA SINGH AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Daya Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 18860 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20892 (12 December 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Reserved

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18860 of 2006

Daya Singh and another Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble  Ravindra Singh,J.

This application has been filed by the applicants Daya Singh and Mukesh with a prayer that they may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 254 of 2005 under sections 147,148,149,307,302 I.P.C. P.S. Sirsaganj district Firozabad.

The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Mahesh Chandra at P.S. Sirsaganj on 2.10.2005 at 7.40 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 2.10.2005 at about 6.30 p.m. the distance of the police station was about 8 km from the alleged place of occurrence. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and 5 other co-accused persons alleging therein that the first informant was having litigation with collateral, namely Devi Ram, co-accused Barakh Lal, co-accused Amar Deep alias Birju, co-accused Mukesh, there was enmity between them. On 2.10.2005 some persons has cut the grass from the boundary of field belonging to Devi Ram on this account the co-accused Devi Ram came at the house of the first informant and made allegation against him that he has cut his boundary which was clarified by the first informant but the dispute became more complicated,  at about 6.30 p.m. the applicant and five others co-accused persons armed with country made pistol, came there and some of them climbed on their roof and started hurling the abuses and discharged shots. Consequently, the deceased Smt. Om Wati, the deceased Sher Singh, injured Kalawati and injured Smt. Guddi Devi sustained injuries but Smt. Kalawati and Sher Singh succumbed to their injuries. The alleged occurrence was witnessed by Nem Sing,Urvesh Singh alias Kanhiaya and Keshav Singh, leaving the dead body of the deceased Omwati and Sher Singh at the alleged placed of occurrence, the injured Smt. Guddi Devi and Smt. Kalawati were taken to the police station where the F.I.R. was lodged.

According to the post mortem examination report of Sher Singh, he has received only one gun shot wound of entry on front of chest no blackening or tattooing was found and six metallic shots were recovered from the wound. The deceased Smt. Omwati had also received one gun shot wound of entry on the front of chest, size of each injury was 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x muscle deep which was also having no blackening and tattooing. The seize of each injury was 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x cavity deep.

The medical examination report of Smt. Guddi shows that she received four gun shots wound of entry and all the injuries were caused from a long distance by 12 bore   weapon and the injured Smt. Vimlesh received 2 gun shot wounds of entry. The size of 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x depth not proved.

Heard Sri Roopak Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G. A. for the State.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to the F.I.R. firing was done on the roof and from the ground and it has been specified and how many accused fired from the roof but according to the site plan, the accused Sumer  discharged shots from the place of ''x' which hit the deceased Sher Singh at place ''B' Now it has been specified that the co-accused Sumer  caused injury to the deceased Sher Singh no other co-accused caused injury on his person and from the place ''C' i.e. from the roof remaining accused discharged shots. The deceased Smt. Guddi Devi and injured Smt. Kalawati received injuries at place ''D' and at place ''E' i.e. second floor. Smt. Omwati received injuries at the place ''C' and the deceased Smt. Omwati run after receiving the injury but died at place ''F' and at place ''Y' empty cartridges of 12 bore was recovered. It is further contended that Smt. Omwati had received one gun shot wound of entry, which has not been specified as to whose shot hit the deceased.  The injured Smt. Guddi Devi received injury from a long distance by discharging one shot. It has not been specified that whose shot hit the injured. Smt. Guddi Devi and Smt. Vimlesh also received only one injury, which has not been specified who caused that injury.

In the present case seven persons including the applicant have been falsely implicated. In the site plan the presence of the witnesses have not been shown. It is further contended that the recovery of two country made pistols have been made at the pointing out of other co-accused persons namely Rajpal, Devi Ram and Sumer  and from the possession of the applicant no fire arm was recovered. There is a cross version also. The wife of the co-accused Devi Ram filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that the alleged occurrence had taken place in the evening hours. The applicants are innocent; they are having no motive to commit the alleged offence. Therefore, they may be released on bail. They are not having any criminal antecedent. Therefore, they may be released on bail.

In reply of the above contentions it is submitted that in the present case seven persons have discharged shots consequently, four persons received gun shot injury in which two persons succumbed to their injuries. The F.I.R. has been promptly lodged. There are injured witnesses to support the prosecution story. The alleged occurrence has been witnessed by independent witness. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they shall tamper with the evidence.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicants are not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.

Dt.12.12.2006

NA


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.