Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANJAY SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sanjay Singh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3560 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7468 (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. 3560 of 2006

Sanjay Singh Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

This application is filed by the applicant Sanjay Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 536 of 2005 under section 147,148,149,307,302,504,506 I.P.C. P.S. Parsurampur district Basti.

The facts of the case, in brief  are  that in this case an F.I.R. has been lodged by one Vinod kumar Yadav at P.S. Parsurampur on 20.10.2005 at about 14.30 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred in the night of 19/20.10.2005 at about 2 a.m. in the vicinity of village  Padari Babu, the distance of the police Station  is  about 3 km from the place of occurrence. The F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant Sanjay Singh and 20 others co-accused persons. It is alleged  that co-accused  Arjun Singh, who was residing in the same village where the first informant was residing, was contesting the election of the member of Zila Panchayat. He was having old enmity with the first informant. In the night of 19/20.10.2005 at about 2 a.m. one Gokul Yadav, was going to his house from the house of the first informant, after seeing  a picture on the T.V. when he covered a distance of about 25 yards, he was surrounded by the applicant and other co-accused persons who hurled abuses on him, then Gokul Yadav started shouting. On his shouting the first informant his father deceased Hira Lal, his brother injured Ashwani Kumar and his cousin Durga Yadav and other persons came in his rescue  and asked co-accused Arjun and others not to hurl abuses. The co-accused Arjun Singh by his rifle, applicant Sanjay Singh and co-accused Rakesh Singh by their  guns and co-accused Dharmendra Tiwari by his country made pistol discharged shots consequently, Hira Lal, the father of the first informant   and Ashwani Kumar, brother of the first informant, received injuries, and  all the accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter deceased Hira Lal, injured Ashwani Kumar was brought to the hospital Basti where Hira Lal  died. Thereafter, the first informant went to the police station where he lodged the F.I.R,

Heard Sri  Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri KK. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.

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

I.That the alleged occurrence had taken place in the dark night, sufficient light was not there and  there was no opportunity for any person to identify the real assailant but the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case because of   village partibandi.

II.That Arjun Singh, the  father of the applicant, was contesting election for the post of member, Zila Panchayat,Basti, and Smt. Renu Singh wife of the applicant was also contesting the election for the post of the member  Block Development Committee, Parsurampur and one Shiv Pal Singh, scribe of the F.I.R. was also contesting the election against the wife of the applicant, at his instance the applicant has been falsely implicated.

III.That at the exhortation of the scribe Shiv Pal Singh, the deceased Hira Lal, used lathi blow on the head of the applicant. When he  was busy in canvassing and Shiv Pal Singh tried to fire at the chest of the applicant but  the barrel of the gun was pushed of the  applicant to save his life, even then that shot causes injury on right hand but by that shot the deceased and injured received injuries. The applicant went to the police station but the F.I.R. of the applicant was not registered. Thereafter, he moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

IV.That there was  no independent witnesses to support the prosecution story.

V.That the prosecution story is not corroborated with the medical evidence.

It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that the applicant is the main accused. The role of firing is assigned to the applicant and co-accused consequently, the deceased and the injured Ashwani Kumar received gun shot injuries. The anti mortem injuries of the deceased shows that the injuries were having blackening., which shows that the injuries were caused from a close range and the applicant and other co-accused were properly identified in the moon light, torchlight and electric light. The applicant was having strong motive to commit the alleged offence. The applicant had moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in which the plea of self offence has not been taken but it is alleged that the deceased Hira Lal used lathi blows which caused injury on his head and one Shiv Pal Singh was putting gun barrel on the chest which was pushed by him and shot was discharged which hit  on his hand and caused injury on the person of the deceased and injured Ashwani  also but this story is not corroborated by the medical evidence  because the anti mortem injuries of the deceased shows that all the injuries were having blackening and all the injuries of the deceased and the injured  were not the result of single shot, in such a situation no reliance can be placed on the cross version. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged, there was no , delay in lodging the F.I.R. it has been lodged within 2,1/2 hours in the same night of occurrence. The distance of the police station was about 3 km from the alleged place of occurrence. In case the applicant is   released on bail  he will not permit the witnesses to depose  evidence against him. Therefore, he  may not be released on  bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.GA. And without expressing any opinion on merit of the  case, the applicant is not  entitled for bail. Therefore, prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly, this application is rejected.

Dt.6.4.2006

NA

.


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.