Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KANHAIYA versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kanhaiya v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 23840 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 21096 (14 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. 23840 of 2006

Kanhaiya.....Vs......State of U.P.

.......

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.

This application has been filed by the applicant Kanhaiya with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 84 of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 I.P.C., P.S. Salempur, District Bulandshahar.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Chandra Bhan Saini on 25.5.2006 at 5.40 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 25.5.2006 at about 5.00 p.m. The distance of the police station was about ½ km from the alleged place of occurrence. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant, co-accused Kushal and Kishan Lal Sengar alleging therein that the deceased and the applicant and other co-accused persons were doing the business of disk cable. Due to professional competition the applicant and 2 other co-accused persons were having the enmity with the deceased Suraj Saini and several times they have extended threats to the deceased for facing dire consequences in case he is not closed the business of disk cable. At the time of alleged occurrence the first informant along with the deceased Suraj Saini, Ashok and Ambey Prasad were going in a maruti car from Bulandshahar to Shikarpur. When they reached near a garden the applicant and other co-accused persons came there on a maruti car and they stopped the car of the first informant by over taking their car, thereafter, they came out from the car and discharged the shots by country made pistol towards the deceased who was sitting on steering seat. The deceased died instantaneously on his seat. After committing the murder of the deceased the applicant and other co-accused persons escaped towards the Saleempur by showing their country made pistol. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had received 6 firearm wounds of entry and 3 exit wounds.  

 Heard Sri Satish Trivedi Senior Advocate assisted by Sri V.S. Chaudhary learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Amit Mishra learned counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the presence of the witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful because it is said that indiscriminate firing was done by the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is alleged that at the time of firing the first informant and 3 other persons were also sitting in the car, but except deceased no other person received any injury. The story narrated in the F.I.R. is highly improbable and unreliable. It appears that the alleged occurrence had taken place when the deceased was alone in his car. During investigation the manner of the occurrence has also been changed and 2 persons namely Bhupendra and Yogendra have been added. According to the F.I.R.  the applicant and 3 other co-accused persons discharged the shots, but according to the statement of Ambey Prasad the applicant and co-accused Kushal and Yogendra discharged the shots  and the role of exhortation was attributed to co-accused Kishan Lal and one Kuldeep having the country made pistol was also present there. The witness Ravi Kiran stated that the murder was committed by the applicant, Kushal, Kishasn Lal, Bhupendra, Yogendra and Kuldeep. The witness Yogendra Singh stated that he had seen that one person was shot dead by the miscreants, but he did not disclose the name of the co-accused. The same statement was given by Giriraj Singh, Jaipal Singh and Prem Chandra. The  co-accused Kishan Lal Singhal alias Piddi has been released on bail by this court on 11.8.2006 in Criminal Misc Bail application No. 16408 of 2006. According to the F.I.R. there was a general role assigned to the applicant and other co-accused persons and co-accused Bhupendra has been released on bail on 4.9.2006 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19341 of 2006. The applicant is man of peace loving. He has been falsely implicated in the present case, therefore, he may be released on bail.

In reply of the above contention the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant submit that it is a day light incident. The F.I.R. has been promptly lodged within 40 minutes of the alleged offence. The applicant is named in the F.I.R. The role of firing is assigned to the applicant and same role has been given by the witnesses also. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence, because the deceased has received 6 gunshot wounds of entry.  During investigation it has been specifically alleged by the eyewitnesses that injuries were caused by the applicant and other co-accused. The role of exhortation was assigned to the co-accused Kishan Lal and no role of causing injuries is assigned to co-accused Bhupendra that is why they have been released on bail. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of above-mentioned co-accused. In case the applicant is released on bail he shall tamper with the evidence, therefore, he may not be released on bail.

      Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant and considering the role of the applicant causing the injuries to the deceased, the gravity of the offence is too much and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.

         Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

Dated: 12.12.2006

Rcv

                                                                   


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.