Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NAIPAL RAM versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Naipal Ram v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3430 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7447 (6 April 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. 3430 of 2006

Naipal Ram ...Vs...State of U.P.

.......

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

      This application is filed by the applicant Naipal Ram with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 568 of 2005  under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Lalganj, district Basti.

         The prosecution story, in brief, is that in the present case the F.I.R. has been lodged by one Ram Prasad at P.S. Lalganj on 27.6.2005 at 6.10 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 27.6.2005 at abaout 3.00 p.m. It is alleged that a civil case no. 737 of 1991 is pending in the civil court  Basti. On account of that case Baliram, Banshraj and others had beaten many times to Gangaram the uncle of the first informant. Therefore, criminal cases were registered which were at the evidence stage, then, Banshraj and Rajesh committed the murder of Gangaram in the year 2001. In one of the the above mentioned criminal case the  deceased Balkesh S/o Gangaram was witness, this case was also at the evidence stage, so he was assaulted in year  2003 by the applicant and co-accused Banshraj, Ramesh and Janaradan, in respect of that incident, an F.I.R. under Section 307 I.P.C. was registered. This case is also pending in the court and it is also at the evidence stage. The applicant and other co-accused persons were pressurising for compromise and they were extending the threat that in case the compromise is not done the same  consequences as  Gangaram, would be faced. On the date of alleged occurrence the deceased Balkesh was going on  a cycle when he reached near Rauniya Chauraha the applicant and co-accused Ramesh, Mahesh, Banshraj and one unknown person were standing there and two Yamaha motorcycles were also parked there, as the deceased reached near the accused persons all the accused persons discharged the shots by country made pistols, consequently, after receiving the injuries the deceased died and all the accused persons left the place by riding on the motorcycles. It is also alleged that this murder was committed as a result of a conspiracy hatched in the jail by one co-accused Baliram.

Heard Sri P.N. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Apul Mishra learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri O.P. Srivastave learned counsel for the complainant.

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

(i)That  the presence of the first informant and other witness Ram Chandra at the alleged place of occurrence was highly doubtful because no attempt was made by the accused persons to commit their murder and they themselves did not make any efforts to save the life of the deceased.

(ii) That there was no motive and intention for  the applicant to commit the alleged offence because even according to the F.I.R. version the civil litigation was pending between the family of the deceased and the family of Ram Bahal, but no civil litigation was pending with the applicant.

(iii) That the applicant is a teacher. He is teaching at a school at village Parmeshwarpur. However, in pursuance of the order dated 13.5.2004 passed by the Basic Sikshha Adhikari by which he was deputed for getting a school constructed at village Gangapur Majha. On the date of alleged occurrence he was on duty at village Gangapur Majha. Eight persons have filed affidavit showing their presence at Gangapur Majha.

(iv) That the applicant was having no motive to commit the murder of the deceased and he was not involved in  case of murder of Gangarm. The alleged incident was not witnessed by the alleged witness  because the prosecution story is not corroborated by medical evidence, because it is alleged that four persons fired by country made pistol but the deceased has received only 2 gunshot injuries and 2 incised wounds and some lacerated wounds.

(v)The applicant is innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence, he has been falsely implicated. He may be released on bail.  

            It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that the alleged incident had taken place in a broad day light at about 3.00 p.m. on 27.6.2005. Its F.I.R. was promptly lodged on the same day at 6.10 p.m. and there was a strong motive to commit the murder of the deceased because prior the alleged occurrence the father of the deceased was murdered and some other criminal cases were also pending  and the deceased was also attacked by two other accused persons in the year of 2003, that case was also at the evidence stage in which the deceased was a star witness but  the applicant and other co-accused persons were pressurizing the deceased and other for compromise. The applicant was on bail under Section 307 I.P.C.. He has misused the same and wiped out the evidence. The deceased was star witness being  injured, has been murdered. The prosecution story is fully supported by the medical evidence because according to post mortem report the deceased has received only 2 gunshot wounds of entries, 2 incised wounds, one abraded contusion and one lacerated wound. According to prosecution version itself at the time of alleged occurrence the deceased was riding on a cycle.  After receiving the injuries  he fell down from the cycle and would have  received incised wound, abraded contusion and lacerated wound due to fall  also because one of the incised wound was on the left elbow  and the second incised wound was on the left forearm.  These injuries may be caused by some parts of the cycle also and the plea of alibi shall be considered at the time of the trial, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

            Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant and considering the chain of criminal cases and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.

           Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

Dated:  6.4..2006

Rcv

         


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.