High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Kamla Khangar v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 240 of 2006  RD-AH 551 (9 January 2006)
Court No. 19
Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 240 of 2006
Kamla Khangar.....Vs.....State of U.P.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Singh, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and also the learned A.G.A.
The applicant is involved in case crime No. 602 of 2005, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 304 IPC, Police Station Rath. District Hamirpur.
It is alleged that on 8.9.2005 at 7 p.m. Ram Asrey and his four sons came wielding fire arms and fired at Basdeo, due to which he died on the spot. A report was lodged at 9.10 p.m. on the same night. In the post mortem two fire arm injuries and 12 incised wounds were found on the body of the deceased. These injuries were the cause of death.
Against the genuineness of the prosecution case and proposed evidence as also involvement of the accused it was pointed out that the applicant is not named in the FIR. Subsequently his name was introduced in the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. It was further pointed out that according to allegation these persons fired from their fire arms but only two fire arms wounds were found on the body of the deceased. More significant is the fact that the allegation is only regarding firing and beating with the butts of the rifle/country made pistol. But there is no explanation about incised wounds found on the body of the deceased which indicates that none of the witnesses was present. It was further pointed out that the deceased had a long criminal history of 27 cases and had many enemies. He was killed by one of the enemies in the dark hours of the night. The applicant was falsely implicated due to enmity. The attention of the Court was drawn towards the rejection order wherein initially the bail was granted to Ram Asrey and subsequently on the same ground the bail was also granted to his four sons named in the FIR whereas bail of the applicant has been rejected mainly on the ground that he could not show enmity for false implication whereas against Ram Asrey and 4 sons there appeared to be an election enmity. It was pointed out that as mentioned in para 9 of the affidavit the applicant has been falsely implicated due to village Partibandi. It was elaborated that the applicant is having intimacy along with Ram Asrey and his sons that is why he was implicated alongwith them. It was emphasized that the role assigned to Ram Asrey and his sons being similar, he should not be deprived from being released on bail.
The bail was, however, opposed by the learned A.G.A.
The points pertaining to nature of accusation, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction of the Court regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered.
In view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration some of the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant in respect of the points discussed herein above significantly non mentioning the name of the applicant in the FIR, and enlargement of bail of the named accused in the FIR by the learned Sessions Judge, without prejudice to the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.