Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM AUTAR versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Autar v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 9770 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 6663 (27 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. 54

CRIMINALMISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 9770 OF 2005.

Ram Autar Vs. State of U.P.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard Smt. Sadhna Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The first information report was registered on 8.2.2005 at 8.00 A.M. regarding an occurrence said to have taken place on the same day at 6.30 A.M. As many as six accused are named in the first information report.  Common role has been assigned to all the accused having been armed with fire arms, who are alleged to have shot at the deceased while sitting on a tractor. At the time, when the bail application was argued, the learned counsel for the opposite party and A.G.A. were granted time to file reply in respect of the arguments on behalf of the applicant. It is argued that there was no source of light and the date of occurrence was in the early hours of February and there was sufficient fog early in the morning. The deceased has a long criminal history. The applicant has been falsely implicated on account of previous litigation. A perusal of the first information report, makes it evident that common role has been assigned to all the accused. The post mortem report is Annexure-8 to the affidavit, which shows that there are as many as 9 injuries. The prosecution case do not support the injury. The tractor on which the deceased is alleged to have been sitting at the time of occurrence, has neither been taken into custody nor any dent of the fire arm was on the said tractor. The eye witnesses have subsequently came up with the case that the tractor was surrounded from all sides by the accused who had fired indiscriminately at the deceased. The complainant Sunil, who was riding on a Ghori is said to have run away from the place of the occurrence.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the learned A.G.A. where the time of occurrence is admitted and also that there was no mark of fire on the tractor, therefore, it was not taken into custody which was loaded with sugarcane. It is also denied that there was insufficient light as it was in the early hours when the occurrence had taken place and there was no cold wave whatsoever. So far the recovery on the pointing out of the present accused, it has been stated in paragraph 13 of the affidavit that the alleged recovery is absolutely false. The police had already a sealed bundle which was shown to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The application, which was moved by the respective counsel of the present accused and Ram Ratan at the time when they were taken on police remand on 26.2.2005 challenging the recovery shown at their pointing out. An application was moved on 28.2.2005 denying the aforesaid recovery. The entire application has been quoted in paragraph 13 which has not been disputed in the counter affidavit. However, this application is of no help at this stage which will be seen during the trial. Regarding the criminal history, nothing has been brought on record.   However, it is true that four persons are still absconding. In paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the applicant was involved in some earlier criminal cases but no detail has been brought on record. On being questioned, the learned A.G.A. was not able to bring any criminal history on record for which the time was granted by this Court on the previous occasion. I am also informed by the counsel for the applicant that the trial of the present applicant was separated from those who are still absconding.

Perusal of the first information report and various statements annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, the manner in which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place, do not corroborate the medical evidence. Besides, the objection of the learned A.G.A. regarding criminal history of the applicant is not substantiated in the counter affidavit filed by the State.  

In the facts and circumstances of the case, without giving any opinion on merit, I allow this bail application with the condition that the present applicant will not be absent on any date fixed during the trial and no parity will be given to those absconded accused, in the event, they surrender before the court. The court concerned is directed to enlarge the applicant Ram Autar on bail in case Crime No. 22 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. Police Station Kampil, Tehsil Kayamganj, District Fatehgarh (Farrukhabad) on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties for an amount of Rs. 75,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Dt/-27.3.2006.

Rmk.    


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.