DADA SINGH @ DEV BRAT SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Dada Singh @ Dev Brat Singh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 26738 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 2133 (9 February 2007)

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. 26738 of 2006

Dada Singh alias Dev Brat Singh Vs. State of U.P.

Hon. Ravindra Singh, J.

This application has been filed by the applicant Dada Singh alias Dev Brat Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case Crime No. 278 of 2006, under section 307 and 302 I.P.C., P.S. Chaubeypur, District Varanasi.

The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Badri Narain Singh Yadav on 10.7.2006 at 9.40 A.M. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 10.7.2006 at about 8.30 A.M. The applicant, co-accused Ram Singh and co-accused Munna Singh alias Kamar Bhandhu Singh are named in F.I.R. and one co-accused was unknown. It is alleged that on 10.7.2006 the deceased Narayan Yadav along with his manager injured Pappu Srivastava were going on a motorcycle to their village, when their motorcycle by turning point near the village Gopalpur Cherai, the applicant and co-accused came on a motorcycle from the front side and they discharged the shots indiscriminately, consequently their motorcycle fell down, the injured Pappu Srivastava made a shouting then co-accused Munna Singh alias Kamar Bhandhu and one unknown miscreants came on a motorcycle from the back side, at their exhortation the applicant discharged a shot which hit the injured Pappu Srivastava. After committing the alleged offence the applicant and other co-accused ran away towards the city. The injured Pappu Srivastava who narrated the whole story to the first informant and others, was taken to the Singh Research and Medical Centre, but the brother       of the first informant namely Narayan Yadav succumbed to his injuries in the way to the hospital. Thereafter the first informant went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had received 14 ante mortem injuries and the injured Pappu Srivastava had sustained fire arm injury on the left thigh.

Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Roshan Khan and Sri Anil Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that F.I.R. of this case is ante timed, the first informant is not eye witness, the statement of the injured Pappu Srivastava was recorded by the doctor at the time of his medical examination who stated that when he was going to the brick klins along with the deceased two fellow came on two wheelers from the front side and caused injury on the person of the injured and the deceased. He did not disclose the name of the applicant and other co-accused. The naming of the applicant is after thought. The applicant was not known to the witnesses, he  claimed for identification but the same has been refused. Injured has given different version in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. The co-accused Ram Singh and Munna  Singh alias Kamar Bhandhu Singh have been released on bail. The applicant is having no criminal antecedents, he is innocent person, he may be released on bail.

In reply of the above contention it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that the alleged occurrence had taken place in broad day light. The F.I.R. has been promptly lodged. The specific role of causing the injury on the person of the deceased has been assigned to the applicant and the injured had injuries caused by the fire arm, entries made by the doctor at the time of the medical examination of the injured is having no relevance because such references are noted on saying of the other persons who brought the injured in the hospital. The statement of the injured has been recorded by the I.O., according to his statement the applicant has caused injury on the person of the deceased by discharging the shots by the  pistol and the applicant had caused injury on the person of the injured also. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence. The applicant was known to the witnesses, Therefore, there was no need to hold the identification parade before applicant.

Considering  the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., considering the allegation made against the applicant causing injury on the person of the deceased and injured by the fire arm and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.

Dt.  9.2.2007

RPD.

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

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.