High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rajendra Singh @ Raju v. State Of U.P - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 1750 of 2007  RD-AH 2564 (15 February 2007)
Court No. 47
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1750 of 2007
Rajendra Singh @ Raju Vs. State of U.P.
Hon. Ravindra Singh, J.
This application has been filed by the applicant Rajendra Singh alias Raju with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 27 of 1992, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Debai, District Bulandshahr.
The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Om Prakash on 5.9.1992 at 1.30 A.M. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 5.9.1992 at about 0.30 A.M. It is alleged that there was a litigation pending the court of Munsif between the deceased and the accused persons, in the night of the alleged incident the applicant and other accused persons came near the cot of the deceased where he was sleeping. The applicant discharged the shots by the country made pistol which hit in the chest of the deceased, after receiving the gun shot injury the deceased started running but he fell down under the floor and died there. The alleged incident was witnessed in the electric light. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had received gun shot wound of entry on the back of left shoulder having its exit wound on upper abdomen, the injury was not having blackening or tattooing.
Heard Sri Taj Pal, Sri Sukhendra Pal Singh, Sri Nasiruzzaman, Sri I.M. Khan, 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 the alleged occurrence had taken place in the dark hours of night when the deceased was sleeping on his cot, it was a hit and run affairs because somebody came in the dark hours of night and caused gun shot injury on the back of the deceased when he was sleeping and thereafter ran away, there was no opportunity for any of the witness to recognize the real assailant. The F.I.R. of this case is ante timed, it was not in existence as alleged by the prosecution on 5.9.1992 at about 1.30 A.M. Considering the allegation made against the applicant the arrest of the applicant was stayed by this court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2508 of 2003 but the same has been disposed of on 15.12.2006 with a direction that in case the applicant appears or surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within ten days, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law and also considering the facts that co-accused have already been released on bail in pursuance of the above mentioned order the applicant surrendered before the court. The applicant is an engineer, he was on his duty at Atomic Power Plant at Naroura at the time of alleged incident. The I.O. had gone to the aforesaid Atomic Power Plant and had interrogated the other employees who stated that at the time of alleged incident the applicant was present there. The prosecution story is not corroborated by the post mortem examination report because it has been specifically alleged that the shot discharged by the applicant had hit the chest of the deceased but as per post mortem examination report the deceased had received gun shot wound of entry on his back, its exit wound was on the upper part of the abdomen which shows that alleged incident was not witnessed by the first informant and other witnesses. Applicant is innocent and there is no chance of his absconding and he may be released on bail
In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that in the present case the F.I.R. has been promptly lodged and the plea of the alibi shall be considered at the stage of the trial if it is taken by the applicant, deceased had received one gun shot wound of entry and videographic description is not expected by any of the witness because the applicant has caused injury in the night hours. The applicant is main accused, he may not be released on bail.
Considering the facts, circumstance of the case, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., considering the role of the applicant causing injury 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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.