Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARENDRA versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Harendra v. State of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3844 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7938 (19 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.3844 of 2006

Harendra Versus State of U.P.

***

Hon. (Mrs.) Saroj Bala, J.

This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant Harendra arraigned in case Crime No.  143 of 2005 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 34 I.P.C., Police station Kakod, district Gautambudh Nagar.

Heard Sri S.P.S. Raghav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned AGA and have perused the record.

According to the prosecution case on 13.10.2005 at about 5.45 p.m. co-accused Nawab was subjecting his wife to assault. When Yusuf tried to intervene co-accused Nawab hurled abuses. On 14.10.2005 Yusuf, his son and brother were subjected to assault by co-accused with deadly weapon and a case under sections 147, 504, 452, 324, 323 I.P.C. was registered on 14.10.2005 at 8.30 p.m. on the written report of Yusuf. In retaliation to the said first information report on 15.10.2005 at about 5.30 p.m. in front of the house of Nawab the applicant and co-accused opened indiscriminate fire from country made pistols at Imran and Farooq sons of Yusuf. Both the injured succumbed to injuries. The applicant and co-accused were arrested from the house of co-accused Chand. On search of the person of the applicant one country made pistol .315 bore with cartridge in its barrel and a live cartridge from the pocket of the pant was recovered. The recovery of illicit weapons was also made from the personal search of co-accused. The post mortem certificate of the deceased Imran indicates presence of firearm wound of entry size 2.5 cm. chest cavity deep in right upper part of front of chest with blackening and tattooing. One metallic bullet was recovered from scapula right. The death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of anti-mortem firearm injury. In the post mortem of deceased Farooq a stitched wound 1.5 cm. on left side of head and stitched wound 1.5 cm. on left side of head were found. The death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of anti-mortem injuries.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that four accused persons are said to have opened indiscriminate fire but the deceased Imran sustained a single gun shot injury. The learned counsel submitted that the injury report of the deceased Farooq indicates presence of lacerated wound. The submission of the learned counsel was that presence of the applicant and co-accused in the house of co-accused indicates their innocence. The argument of the learned counsel was that the applicant has no relationship or affiliation with co-accused. It was urged that the applicant had no motive for participation in double murder.

The learned AGA argued that the applicant and co-accused having been surrounded by the villagers, they could not run away from the spot. The learned counsel urged that the first information report was lodged with all promptitude naming the applicant and co-accused persons.

I have taken into consideration the submissions made on behalf of both the parties.

The first information report was lodged with all promptness naming the applicant and co-accused, the weapons carried and used by them. The applicant was armed with country made pistol .315 bore and participated in the commission of the offence. The recovery of country made pistol .315 bore was made from the possession of the applicant soon after the commission of the offence. The applicant being involved in a case of double murder, I do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

The bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Harendra is hereby rejected.

D/- April    19   ,2006

Mahmood.


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.