High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Gunder And Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 270 of 2006  RD-AH 655 (10 January 2006)
Court No. 19
Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.270 of 2006
Gunder and another .....Vs.....State of U.P.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Singh, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. and also perused the material on record.
The applicants Gunder and Sanjay are involved in case crime No. 275 of 2005, for the offence under Sections 364,302,201 I.P.C., Police Station Kithore, district Meerut..
According to the prosecution case the murder of Pramod Kumar was committed on 9.9.2005. The first information report was lodged on 19.9.2005 saying that the deceased had gone with Ran Veer Singh ( non applicant). On 22.9.2005 second report was lodged by the same informant at about 1.00 p.m. to the effect that witnesses Bhavee Chandra had told about witnessing the murder of the deceased in the Bageecha ( garden) out side the village by 4 persons namely Ran Veer (non applicant) Jagresh (non applicant) and Gunder and Sanjay ( both applicants). In the post mortem report 3,4,5 and 6 ribs were found fractured on the right side similarly on the left side 4,5,6 and 7 ribs were found fractured. Besides sternum was also found fractured which was caused the death. No other external injury was found on the body.
Against the genuineness of the prosecution case and the proposed evidence as also involvement of the accused it was argued that the presence of both witnesses namely Viaji Singh and Bhawani Chand is highly improbable because there is no specific explanation that had they really seen the murder being committed, why at all they kept mum for such a long period of 13 days. It was also emphasized that the alleged manner does not find support by the medical evidence. According to allegations both the applicants were catching hold of hands, Ran Veer ( non applicant) was catching hold of legs and Jagresh (non applicant) was catching hold of his neck. But no injury/ fracture has been found on legs, hands or neck. On the converse ribs and sternum were found fractured which caused death according to doctor as per post mortem report. It was also argued that even if the allegations are taken to be true on the face value, the only allegation against the applicant is that of catching hold of hands while the main role of catching hold of neck has been assigned to Jagresh (non applicant)
The bail is, 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 applicants in respect of the points discussed herein above, significantly non disclosure by both the witnesses of same village for about 13 days, non corroboration of alleged manner by the medical evidence and the role of only catching hold of hands by the applicants, without prejudice to the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicants be enlarged on bail on their 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.