High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rakesh Sharma v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 18891 of 2005  RD-AH 6662 (27 March 2006)
Court No. 54
CRIMINALMISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 18891 OF 2005
Rakesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P.
Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.
Heard Sri V.C. Mishra, Senior Advocate, Sri P.N. Mishra, assisted by Sri Apul Mishra and Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
It is submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated who happens to be an Engineer. A perusal of the first information report shows that he is said to have fired the fatal shot at the deceased Virendra. It is a double murder case and two persons have been done to death. The submission on behalf of the applicant is that the first information report is anti-timed. No crime number is mentioned in the post mortem report of the two deceased and on the basis of the post mortem report, it is further argued that two different weapons have been used to cause the injury to the deceased Virendra and Jaiveer. The nature of the injuries clearly show that the shots have been caused by different weapons. Since all the other co-accused have been released on bail, therefore, the present applicant, who is alleged to have shot Virendra in the first information report, is also entitled to bail. Besides, it is argued that one of the accused has not been charge sheeted and alibi claimed by the present applicant on the basis of Annexure-2 to the rejoinder affidavit shows that he was not well and was examined on the relevant date and time at Rajkiya Sanyukt Chikitsalaya Sector 30, Noida (Gautam Budh Nagar). It is certified by the doctor that the patient was kept under observation from 2.10 P.M. to 7.30 P.M. on 22.4.2005. Besides, the applicant is also detained under the provisions of Gangster Act without any approval from the District Magistrate as required by the D.O. letter issued from the office of Chief Secretary, State of U.P. on 2.1.2004. It is also argued that the report of Ballistic expert show that the licensed pistol of the present applicant has not caused the fatal injuries to the deceased. These allegations have emphatically been disputed by the State as well as counsel appearing for the first informant.
After hearing the respective counsels at length, I do not agree with the submission made by Sri V.C. Mishra since it is broad day light occurrence. Specific role has been assigned to the present applicant. It is immaterial whether he is an Engineer or any other co-accused has not been charge sheeted. Since it has yet to be established whether the licensed gun was used by the present applicant or any other gun, no help could be given from the report of ballistic expert, in respect of the licensed gun of the applicant. The question of alibi as well as ballistic expert report, it will be considered during the course of trial. I do not find any merit in the present bail application. It is accordingly rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.