High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Kala Alias Gajendra v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 5353 of 2006  RD-AH 7836 (18 April 2006)
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5353 of 2006
Kala alias Gajendra Versus State of U.P.
Hon. (Mrs.) Saroj Bala, J.
This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant Kala alias Gajendra indicted in case Crime No. 1352 of 2005 under sections 307, 302, 506 I.P.C, Police station Baraut, district Baghpat.
Heard Sri Y.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA and have perused the record.
On 13.10.2005 at about 6 p.m. the applicant along with named co-accused Ajesh and two unknown persons, all of them armed with country made pistols, came at the shop of carpenter Harpal. It is alleged that the applicant opened fire at the complainant's brother who died instantaneously. The first information report was lodged the same day. The post mortem certificate indicates gun shot wound of entry on right side back of chest and exit wound on right collar bone.
The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that four persons are said to have opened fire but a single gun shot entry wound has been found on the person of the deceased which creates a dent as to the veracity of the prosecution case. The learned counsel urged that during the investigation the presence of co-accused Ajesh has been denied by the villagers, which falsifies the prosecution case. The learned counsel argued that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant by the complainant and the witness Vikkey and witness Harpal was interrogated more than three months after the incident. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant was that an ex parte order of mutation over khata no. 185 was procured by Jai Prakash on the basis of sale deed against which objections were filed by the father of the applicant. The learned counsel submitted that the application for mutation was rejected vide order dated 9.9.2005. Lastly, it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the deceased was a man of criminal antecedents.
The learned AGA argued that the Investigating Officer colluded with the applicant and co-accused and recorded the statement of the independent eye witness Harpal after a delay of more than three months and the Sessions Judge, Baghpat has directed the Superintendent of Police , Baghpat to register a case under sections 218 and 219 I.P.C. against the Investigating Officer.
I have taken into consideration the submissions made on behalf of both the parties.
Harpal has been named as an eye witness in the first information report which was lodged with all promptitude. The eye witness Harpal has assigned the specific role of opening fire from country made pistol to the applicant. The conduct of the Investigating Officer not being fair and impartial, the Sessions Judge, Baghpat has directed the Superintendent of Police, Baghpat to register a case against the Investigating Officer under sections 218 and 219 I.P.C. In these circumstances, the applicant cannot derive any advantage out of the delayed interrogation of independent witness Harpal. The applicant being the main shooter, I do not consider it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application of the applicant Kala alias Gajendra is hereby rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.