Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHAKEEL NAI versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shakeel Nai v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 16253 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3723 (29 September 2005)

 

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. 16253 of 2005

Shakeel Nai ........Vs......... State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

Heard Sri S.F.A. Naqvi  learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

This application is filed by Shakeel Nai with the prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 43 of 2005 under Sections  307 I.P.C. P.S. Khakhreru district Fatehpur.

From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case an F.I.R. was lodged by Smt. Sarla Devi on 31.5.2005 at 8.10 P.M. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 31/5/2005 at 6.30P.M. The distance of the police station was about 3 km from the alleged place of occurrence.

According to the prosecution version injured Gauri Shanker  was taken by the applicant and co-accused Raju near the pond outside the village abadi where injuries were caused by the applicant by using country made pistol. On the shouting of the injured, Ram Naresh and others reached on the place of occurrence then the applicant and co-accused run away from the alleged place of occurrence. The injured was medically examined on 31.5.2005 at 5.00 P.M. The medical examination report shows lacerated wounds  on the  left side of mandible and on middle finger of right hand. The injuries  were kept under observation and advised for x-ray.

According the x-ray report, only  radio opaque shadow was seen and nothing abnormal wad detected.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that that in the present case there was no motive or intention of the applicant to commit the offence and the F.I.R.  was lodged  under section  324 I.P.C. but subsequently, the offence was converted under section 307 I.P.C.

It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the injured is a hale and hearty and the F.I.R. was lodged only in doubt and suspicion  because according to the prosecution version he had gone in the company of the applicant and other co-accused. It is further contended that the applicant is a minor and his date of birth is 7.7.1988, according to the mark sheet of IXth class  and even on the basis of the allegation made against the applicant, no offence under section 307 I.P.C. is made out.

It is opposed  by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that the applicant is the main accused who caused injuries  on the person of the injured by country made pistol.  The F.I.R. was properly lodged because the distance of the police station was 3 km from the alleged place of occurrence. The F.I.R. was registered under section 324 I.P.C. It was not properly registered because on the basis of  the allegation made in the F.I.R. itself the offence under section 307 I.P.C. was made out. This irregularity was corrected  during investigation by  converting the offence under section 307 I.P.C.  The injured has  received three injuries on mandible which is vital part of the body. The x-ray report given by the District Hospital, Fatehpur is procured document because it has been issued in collusion of the applicant. The condition of the injured is very serious as his mandible has been damaged. The treatment of the injured was done at Jivan Jayoti Hospital. According to the discharged card there was three fractures of mandible and the injured is not in a position to speak properly.

It is further contended that the applicant is not a minor and he is not a juvenile. He is 19 years old and according to the certificate issued by the Principal Sri Hanuman Prasad Karvaria Uttar Prathamik Vidyalaya Mongla Piensa,Sirathu Kaushambi the date of birth of the applicant is 7.7.1986. It is further contended that the prosecution story is corroborated by the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and  without expressing any opinion on the merits  of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail.

Accordingly this bail application is rejected.

Dt.  29.09.2005

N.A


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.