Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VINAY KUMAR SINGH ALIAS DADU SINGH AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vinay Kumar Singh Alias Dadu Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3317 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 6105 (20 March 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. 3317 of 2006

Vinay Kumar Singh and another Vs. State  of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

This application has been filed by the applicant Vinay Kumar Singh alias Dadu Singh and Hori Lal Pasi with a prayer that they may be released in case Crime No. 88 of 2005 under section 147,148,149,302,307/34 I.P.C.

The prosecution story in brief is that on 21.6.2005 at 10.15 a.m. an F.I.R. has been lodged by Balram  Singh at P.S. Manjhanpur against the applicants and the co-accused Lakhan Singh, Shardendu Singh, Satyendra Singh and Narendra Singh in respect of the alleged incident which had occurred on 21.6.2005 at about 9 a.m. The distance of the police station was about 15 k.m. from the alleged place of occurrence. The alleged occurrence had  taken place in front of the shop of Udhao Shyam Kesarwani in Village Baksi  Par P.S Manjhanpur. It is alleged that on 21.6.2005 at about 9 a.m. Man Singh, father of the first informant, and Mratunjay Singh, brother of the first informant had gone to the shop of one Udhao Shyam Kesarwani to settle the account where the deceased Balendra Singh, elder brother of the first informant and kaushlendra Singh, younger brother of the first informant also came out from the side of their field.  In the meantime, co-accused Lakhan Singh applicant  Vinay Kuamr Sigh, Satyendra Singh, Narendra Singh armed with gun and the applicant Hori Lal Pasi armed with country made pistol came out from their houses,  who reached at the place of the occurrence. Thereafter at the exhortation of the co-accused Lakhan Singh, all  the co-accused persons, fired indiscriminately consequently, the deceased  Balendra Singh  received gun shot injury and died on the spot. The father of the first informant namely Man Singh and Mratunjay Singh, brother of the   first informant, received gun shot injuries. The dead body was lying on the spot. The injured persons were taken to the police station where the F.I.R. was lodged. The alleged occurrence was witnessed by the first informant, his brother Kaushlendra Singh and  other persons of the village.  Subsequently, injured Mratunjay Singh alias Daroga was also declared dead. According to the post mortem report, the deceased Balendra Singh, received one fire arm wound of entry having dimension of 1.5cm X 1.5 cm bone deep on upper part of the neck blackening and tattooing was present and its exit wound was injury no.2. The deceased Mratunjay Singh alias  Daroga  son of Man Singh had received two gun shot wounds of entries, in which omjury no. 1 was fire arm wound of entry, having the dimension of 8 cm X 5 cm oval in shape, directed downward obliquely over left upper  arm, blacking and tattooing was present. Its exit wound was injury no.2 . Injury no. 3 is  wound of entry 5 cm X 4 cm, oval in shape on left upper part of the chest blackening and   tattooing was present. And from this injury three wadding pieces and one spherical bullet was recovered. The medical examination report of Man Singh shows that he had received lacerated wound having dimension of 3 cm X 3 cm at right nipple no blackening or tattooing was present around the wound. The general condition of the injured was very poor. The injury was kept under observation, it  was caused by firm arm.

Heard Sri V.C. Tiwari, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Manish Tiwari and Sri A.K. Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. and Sri Murlidhar  Misra, learned counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants :-

I.that there was no motive or intention for the applicants and other co-accused persons to commit the alleged offence, even the F.I.R. is silent on the point of motive.

II.that according to the prosecution version the applicants and four other co-accused persons committed alleged offence in which the applicant Vinay Kumar Singh armed with lathi and revolver  and applicant Hori Lal Pasi was armed with country made pistol and  three other co-accused persons were armed with guns. According to the prosecution story all the five persons fired indiscriminately, but this story is not supported by the medical evidence because according to the post mortem examination report of  the two deceased persons and  medical examination report of the injured Man Singh, they received only four gun shot wounds of entries,  even they have not received five gun shot wounds of entries, whereas the role of  firing was attributed to five  accused persons.

III.that the nature of the gun shot wounds of entries received by the deceased persons shows that the injuries were caused from a close range .

IV.that none of the injuries was caused by revolver, which was shown in the hands of the applicant Vinay Kumar Singh. Therefore, the participation of the applicants Vinay Kumar Singh in commission of the alleged offence, is  highly doubtful.

V.that from the surrounding  facts and circumstances of the case  it transpires  that the alleged incident  occurred sometime in the early  morning  when there was dark and there was no opportunity for any witness to identify the real assailant.

VI.that the statement of the deceased Mratunjay Singh, while he was alive, was recorded on 21.6.2005 by the I.O. under section 161 Cr.P.C. On the same day, the statement of Udhao Shyam and Kaushlendra Singh were recorded and the statement of Balram Singh was recorded on 24.6.2005 and the statement of the injured Man Singh was recorded on 17.7.2005. There was delay in interrogation of the witnesses by the I.O., which shows that the statements of the above mentioned witnesses were recorded after thought. According to the statement of the deceased Mratunjay Singh, applicant Hori Lal Pasi armed with Tamancha and applicant Vinay Kumar Singh was armed with licensee revolver  and lathi the other accused  Lakhan was armed with lathi, the role of exhortation was assigned to him. The co-accused Narendra was armed with S.B.B.L. Gun and co-accused Shardendu and Satyendra Singh were armed with D.B.B.L. Gun. According to his statement also all the accused persons who were armed with the fire arm, discharged shot indiscriminately. No specific role has been assigned to any of the accused. Similar statement was given by Kaushlendra Singh and Balram Singh. The statement of the injured Man Singh was also similar the statement of Udhao Shyam shows that he was not an eye witness of the entire incident. According to the statement of the witnesses the applicant Vinay kumar Singh was armed with revolver and the applicant Hori Lal Pasi was armed with Katta(country made pistol)

VII.that in the present case F.I.R. is anti time because according to the medical examination report of the injured Man Singh, he  was brought by Constable C.P. 68 Vinod Chand Dubey. He was examined on 21.6.2005 at 1.30 p.m.  at S.R.N. Hospital. It is mentioned in the report that 'police informed' and the Chitthi Mazroobi was not having any crime number and the sections of the offence. The same entry  was in the medical examination  report of the deceased Mratunjay Singh alias Daroga and in the  inquest  report of the deceased Balendra, sections of the offence were written, subsequently in small letters  in a short space. Inquest report, letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O. Photo Nash and Challan Nash,  shows that at the time of preparation of the inquest report F.I.R. was not in existence.

VIII.that the prosecution story is highly improbably and absurd also. The co-accused Lakhan Singh has already been released on bail by this court. The applicants are  innocent persons they have been falsely  implicated  on the ground of enmity and the applicants are ready to furnish reliable sureties to the entire satisfaction of the court concerned. Therefore the applicants may be released on bail.

It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and Sri Murlidhar Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant. It is submitted by them :-

1) that the applicants and other co-accused persons have committed the present offence at about 9 a.m. on 21.6.2005 in front of a shop  in the abadi area. Its F.I.R. was promptly lodged on the same day at 10.15 a.m. the distance of the police station was 15 k.m. from the alleged place of occurrence; the F.I.R. was promptly lodged and there was no delay in lodging the F.I.R. and there was no chance for consultation etc. and the F.I.R. is not anti timed.

2) that the first informant is also the witness of the alleged occurrence his two real brothers namely Balendra Singh and Mratunjay Singh  alias Daroga have lost their lives  and his father Man Singh became injured in the said incident. The presence of the witnesses including the injured witnesses Man Singh is not doubtful. The alleged occurrence has taken place in day time, the injuries were caused from a close range, there was no question of any mistaken identity, because the applicant and the other co-accused persons are also resident of the same village where the first informant resides.

3)that the applicant Vinay Kumar Singh was armed with revolver  and the applicant Hori Lal  Pasi was armed with Katta(Tamancha) and three other co-accused persons were armed with guns. They fired indiscriminately, it does not mean that every shot hit the deceased or injured. The deceased and injured received gun shot injuries. The nature of injuries shows that the injuries were caused by revolver, gun and country made pistol.  A bare perusal of the medical examination report of the deceased Balendra Singh shows that this injury can be caused by revolver  also and according to the post mortem examination report of deceased Daroga one spherical bullet was recovered from the abdominal cavity and  the nature of the injuries shows that the injury can be caused by more than one  firearm.

3) that in the present case the statement of Mratunjay Singh alias Daroga was recorded on the same day of the alleged occurrence by the I.O. who has supported the prosecution case. The statement of the other witnesses including the injured witness was recorded by the I.O. and there was, no undue, delay in their interrogation, the blood was recovered from the  place of occurrence and there was no reason of false implication of the applicants and other co-accused persons. The statement of the deceased Mratunjay Singh Kaushlendra Singh,Udhao Singh, Balram Singh, Man Singh  were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. after lodging the F.I.R. who have supported the prosecution story.

4) the F.I.R. is not anti timed because the inquest report of the deceased Balendra Singh shows the  crime number  88 of 2005  and sections 147,148,149,307,302/34 I.P.C. are clearly mentioned. The time of the F.I.R. and the name of the first informant is mentioned as of the chik report and crime number  and other relevant injuries are also clearly mentioned in  challan Nash and Photo Nash etc. in the Challan Nash the time of the F.I.R. and the time of the occurrence is also clearly mentioned, which shows that  the F.I.R. was in existence at the time of preparation of he inquest report,  at this stage it is not important if the sections of the offence are written in small letter and in small space

5) that in the present case Doctors who examined the injured and the deceased were in connivance of the accused persons and they have tried to give some benefits to them  by not preparing the reports fairly as  the age of the injured Man Singh who has filed the counter affidavit is about 58 years  but the doctor has mentioned his age in the medical examination report as 38 years. The injured has given an application to District Magistrate Kaushambi making complaint against the doctor who examined him in the S.R.N. Hospital by alleging   therein that  the doctor has mentioned  in the medical examination report,only one gun shot wound of entry whereas he has received  its exit wound also and he has received gun shot injury on the thumb of right hand and due to that injury his thumb was totally cut off but these injuries are not mentioned in the injury report. Therefore, he made request that his injuries may be examined by a  Board. Of Doctors. The same application was given  to the C.M.O. Kaushambi also but the C.M.O. Kaushambi wrote a letter to the Additional Director Health for necessary action but it is mentioned that  it was not possible to examine the injured by medical board because he was examined at S.R.N. Hospital, Allahabad. The complaint was made by the injured Man Singh to the D.M. Allahabad, the same was sent to the C.M.O. Allahabad for taking necessary action but it is very unfortunate that no board was constituted for the medical examination of the injured Man Singh because the applicant and other co-accused are powerful and influential persons.

6) that the applicants are  named accused who caused injuries on the deceased and the injured persons , the F.I.R. was promptly lodged and there is injured witness also so they  are not entitled for bail. In case they are released on bail, they shall   temper with the evidence and they will not permit any witness to give evidence in the court.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant and considering the nature of the offence in which two persons have lost their lives and one person received injuries caused by fire arm, F.I.R. was promptly lodged and the alleged occurrence had taken place in day time at about 9 a.m. on 21.6.2005 in front of  a shop  and the injures were caused by fire arm and there are injured witness also and without expressing any opinion the merit of the case  the applicants are not entitled for bail therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.

Dt. 10.3.2006

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.