High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Raheesh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3711 of 2006  RD-AH 9231 (9 May 2006)
Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 3711 of 2006
Raheesh...Vs...State of U.P.
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
This application is filed by the applicant Raheesh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 57 of 2005, under Section 302 I.P.C. P.S. Chandaus, District Aligarh.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that in the present case the F.I.R. has been lodged by Babu Khan at P.S. Chandaus on 1.7.2005 at 1.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 1.7.200 at about 10.00 a.m. The distance of the police station was about 1 km from the place of occurrence. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and co-accused Kadir. It is alleged that on 1.7.2005 the first informant and his brother deceased Afsar alias Gadda were present at their house. At about 9.30 a.m. the applicant and co-accused Kadir came there and they taken away the deceased from his house. When they reached near the house of one Achchhan the applicant and co-accused taken out their Chhori ( knives) and caused injuries on the persons of the deceased. The deceased shouted. Then the first informant, Pappu, Nanhey and Nunna came at the place of the occurrence and challenged the accused persons. Then they left the place of occurrence showing their knives. Due to fear and terror of the accused pesons the shops of the market were closed. The panic was created and public order was totally disturbed. The deceased in injured condition was taken in a vehicle to medical college where he was declared dead at the time of admission. Leaving the dead body in the medical college the first informant went to the police station to lodge the F.I.R. According to post mortem examination report the deceased had received 3 anti mortem incised wounds.
Heard Sri S.C. Pandey learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the state of U.P.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to prosecution version itself the first informant and other witnesses came at the place of the occurrence on hearing shouting of the deceased and before their arrival the alleged occurrence had taken place. In the presence of the witnesses the applicant and other co-accused persons did not cause any injury. Even according to F.I.R. version the applicant and other co-accused persons left the place of occurrence after arrival of the first informant and other witnesses and they left the place showing their knives. The prosecution story is not corroborated by medical evidence because the deceased had received only 3 incised wounds. Such injuries would have been caused within a minute. The place of occurrence was far away from the house of the first informant from where the first informant and others came at the place of occurrence. The first informant and other witnesses are not eye witness. The alleged occurrence was committed by some unknown persons. On the basis of doubt and suspicion the applicant has been named in the F.I.R. He is innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence and there is no other reliable evidence, therefore, he may be released on bail.
It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that in the present case the F.I.R. was promptly lodged. The alleged occurrence had taken place in the broad day light at about 10.00 a.m. the place of occurrence is a market. The first informant and other eye witnesses are eye witnesses because in the present case the deceased was taken away by the applicant and other co-accused but in the way they caused injuries on his person by using knives blows. On his shrieks or shouting the first informant and other witnesses reached there and saw the applicant and other co-accused persons . The applicant and other co-accused persons left the place of occurrence showing their knives. The market was closed and panic was created, therefore, the deceased taken in injured condition. He was immediately taken to the Medical College where he was declared dead. The information of his death sent by the Medical College was received by the police on 1.7.2005 at 11.40 a.m. On that information the inquest report was prepared on the same day at from 3.30 p.m. to 4.20 p.m. the applicant has committed the alleged offence. The gravity of offence is too much. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and 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.
According this bail application is rejected.
Dated: 9 .5.2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.