Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ASHOK PANDIT versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ashok Pandit v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 7366 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9448 (12 May 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. 7366 of 2006

Ashok Pandit Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

This application is filed by the applicant Ashok Pandit with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no.807 of 2005 under sections 147,148,149,307,304, and 427 I.P.C. P.S.  Thana Bhawan district Muzaffarnagar.

The prosecution story in brief is that on 24.12.2005 the first informant along with Dinesh, Vikas, Jaiveer, Udaiveer Singh were going to their  village from Thana Bhawan by a Scorpio vehicle No. H.R. 37 A 6442, which was driven by Udaiveer Singh, at about 3.30 p.m. on 24.12.2005 the vehicle reached near the bridge of canal, one bullock cart  loaded with sugar cane was parked in the middle of the road, on that bullock cart  Chandveer and Harveer were sitting and two persons namely Surendra and Surajveer were standing on the back side. As soon as the vehicle of the first  informant overtook that bullock cart, 6 or 7 miscreants came out from the sugar cane field and fired indiscriminately towards the vehicle. The persons who were sitting on the bullock cart  and standing on its back side also discharged  shots towards the vehicle of the first informant.  The names of the accused who came from the sugar cane field were Sokendra, Jaspal and Vinod Bavla, three or four accused were unknown, except Vinod Bavla all the accused were resident of the village Dhanaura district Muzaffarnagar who were known to the first informant. Due to firing done by the miscreants the vehicle of the first informant was  disbalanced and it was stopped. The first informant and others started shouting, the people working in the nearby fields and passer-by came at the place of occurrence. The accused persons left the bullock cart and ran away. One of the miscreants had received the injuries caused by his associates who fell down in the sugar cane field. The first informant came out from the vehicle and saw that his brother Udaiveer Singh was in a  pool of blood on the driving seat. He had received the injuries on his right arm and foot. He was taken to the clinic of Dr. Saxena by another vehicle but he was referred to Meerut who was taken by other family members to Meerut.

Heard Sri D.R. Chaudhary learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and Sri R.P. Dwivedi and Sri S.P.Singh Raghav learned counsel for the complainant.

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

I. That there is a cross version of the alleged incident from the side of the applicant also one person has been murdered, his injuries has not been explained.

II.That the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. as per F.I.R. the way of Scorpio was obstructed by four persons and six or seven persons came out from the sugar cane field. Thereafter, all the persons discharged the shots but the statement of the first informant has not been recorded immediately after the F.I.R., at the police station. He himself had gone to the police station to lodge the F.I.R. in the company of Satyaveer, the brother of Udaiveer. The statement of the witness Dinesh was recorded  by the I.O. when he visited the place of occurrence, he stated that one unknown accused was appearing to be Ashok Pandit, the present applicant. Thereafter, the I.O. recorded  the statement of the first informant. He disclosed the name of the applicant and two other accused persons but he did not disclose  the source of information whereas he has not named the applicant and two other accused persons in the F.I.R. Thereafter,  on 5.1.2006 the I.O. recorded the statement of Dinesh and Vikas and the statement of  the injured Udaiveer was recorded on 17.1.2006 therein  no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. The allegation was of general and omnibus in nature.

III.That the prosecution story with regard to the murder of one co-accused by firing of his associates is highly improbable and not reliable.

IV.That the victim and his family members were hardened criminals and the injured Udaiveer Singh is involved in a dozen of criminal cases in various districts.

V.That subsequently, the unknown deceased was identified as Surendra co-associate of Udaiveer. It was an issue of discussion in that locality that a quarrel had taken place  between Udaiveer and Surendra in which Surendra had died. The  family members  of Udaiveer are influential persons, one of them is Block Pramukh and in their  influence the applicant and other co-accused persons have been falsely implicated.

VI.That the prosecution story is not corroborated with the medical evidence  because the deceased had not received any injury  on his back side.  All the injuries were on front side.

VII.That the applicant is an innocent person. He has not committed the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is in jail  since 29.12.2005, therefore, he may be released on bail.

It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting :-

1.That the applicant and other co-accused person,  Vinod Bavla are the  history sheeters of district Muzaffarnagar; the name of the applicant was disclosed immediately by the witnesses to the I.O.  He was named by the witness Vikas also. The first informant could not get an opportunity to get the correct information from the above mentioned witnesses before lodging the F.I.R. because it was promptly lodged  that is why the name of the applicant could not be mentioned in the F.I.R.

2.That the defence taken by the applicant of firing had taken palace between Udaiveer and Surendra is absolutely false and concocted. The alleged occurrence had taken place in a broad day light, The F.I.R. was promptly lodged  and no cross F.I.R. has been lodged from the applicant side. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail whereas the injuries  received by the miscreants side have been explained in F.I.R. itself.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case its nature and gravity  and the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.

Dt.12.5.2006

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.