Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ROOP SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Roop Singh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 22838 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 6174 (21 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

Court No. 27

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22838 of 2005

Roop Singh Versus State of U.P.

***

Hon. (Mrs.) Saroj Bala, J.

This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant Roop Singh arraigned in case Crime No. 196 of 2005 under section 302 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police station Moosanagar, district Kanpur Dehat.

Heard Sri Devendra Swaroop, assisted by Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned A. G.A. and have perused the record of the case.

The prosecution case in nut-shell is that in between the night of  10/11.9.2005 the informant had gone to attend the recital of holy songs (Kirtan) at the tube-well of  Mijaji Lal, son of  Sahablal Yadav resident of   Village Lawarti, Police station Moosanagar, district Kanpur Dehat. It is alleged that the applicant came there at about 1.00 A.M. armed with an axe and gave an axe blow on the head of the informant's brother and caused injuries. The motive behind the commission of the offence is said to be that a year before the victim had dishonoured and disgraced the applicant's father. The victim died on the spot due to head injury. The first information report was lodged on 11.9.2005 at 10.00 A.M. The post mortem certificate reveals the  presence of  I.W. 9 c.m. X 2 c.m. on middle of head in mid line, underlying bone fracture and I.W. 8 c.m. x 2 c.m. muscle deep on left side of  face. The death was caused due to coma as a result of head injury.

The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the first information report was lodged after a delay of more than ten hours. It was submitted that in the first information report source of light has not been mentioned. It was vehemently submitted that presence of petromax has been shown at a distance of about 10 yards, therefore, it was not possible for the witnesses to view the commission of the offence. The

learned counsel for the applicant urged that there was huge gathering in the Kirtan but none of the witnesses intervened or chased the applicant. It was submitted that there is no independent witness of the occurrence.  The learned counsel pointed out that the  axe  recovered at the pointing out of the applicant does not bear blood stains. It was submitted that the applicant is said to have given one axe blow but two injuries were found on the person of the deceased.

The learned  Government Advocate argued that  specific role has been assigned to the applicant and  single head injury  attributed to the applicant resulted into the death of the victim. The learned counsel submitted that the place of the occurrence being situated at a distance of about 11 Km. from the police station and the incident having taken placed at  dead hours of  night the first information report cannot be said to have been lodged after inordinate delay.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of both sides.

The applicant is single accused and specific role of mounting murderous assault on the victim by hitting him with an axe has been assigned to him. The maker of the first information report is not an eye witness, therefore, the omission of source of light is not fatal to the prosecution case. The eye witnesses in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. have stated about the presence of light at the spot and source of light has been shown in the site plan. The applicant being the main assailant I do not consider it a fit case for bail. The bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.

D/-21.3.2006

Mahmood


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.