High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Parvez Alias Puttan v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2756 of 2005  RD-AH 6721 (12 April 2007)
Criminal Appeal No. 2756 of 2005
Parvez @ Puttan .............................. Appellant
State of U.P. .............................. Respondent
Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.
Hon'ble Shiv Charan, J.
This appeal is listed today for consideration of prayer for bail. Lower court record has been received.
We have heard Sri V.C. Tiwari, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri M.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the order of Sessions Judge and lower court record..
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the occurrence took place in late night hours and the injuries of the injured are fabricated. There is inordinate delay of 11 days in recording the statements of the eye witnesses. The informant is not an eye witness and independent witnesses have not corroborated the prosecution case. It is further pointed out that there is conflict in the eye witness account and the post mortem examination report. The witnesses have deposed that the deceased was shot dead from a contact shot and a perusal of the post mortem report shows that it was not a contact shot.
On the contrary counsel for for the complainant submits that the time of occurrence is proved by the eye witnesses and by the statement of the investigating officer. The first information report was also promptly lodged within one hour 45 minutes and the specific role of assault was assigned to the appellant. The statement of the eye witness was also promptly recorded. The occurrence took place in the populated area and the witnesses have also explained their presence at the time of occurrence. The Sessions Judge has also relied upon the testimony of injured witnesses . The presence of witnesses cannot be doubted. If the statements of the eye witnesses were recorded after 11 days, this could be due to fault of the investigating officer and it cannot be presumed that eye witnesses were not present at the time of occurrence. The names of eye witnesses were also mentioned in the first information report.
Considering the role and the gravity of the offence we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail.
Prayer for bail is hereby rejected.
Dated : 12.4.2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.