Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANWAR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Anwar Singh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 10316 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3850 (3 October 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

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

Heard Sri V.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Accused applicant Anwar Singh son of Shri Natthu Singh has prayed for release on bail in case crime no. 122 of 2004 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, P.S. Shikohabad, District Firozabad.

Prosecution case is that there was enmity on account of the election of Gram Pradhan between Mahesh Chandra and others. On 18.4.2004, Santosh Kumar, who is village Pradhan  and is cousin of the complainant Pramod Kumar came by bus. He got down from the bus at Awas Vikas Colony crossing and proceeded towards the house of Dev Chandra  his Bahnoi in the Colony on foot. When he reached near Khadi Bhandar, the complainant, Sanjeev Kumar, Kayam Singh, who were already there accompanied Santosh Kumar and all the four proceeded towards the Awas Vikas Colony. At about 11 a.m., when they reached near the Tiraha before the house of Devendra, a Max Van was standing there and on seeing the complainant and others, Mahesh called out that Santosh had come and that he be not spared. Sahdeo, Anwar, Jaideo and Udaiveer were also with Mahesh Chandra. The accused persons started firing and Santosh Kumar ran towards the house of Dev Chandra but he was    surrounded near the house of Arun Kumar Mahajan and Mahesh Chandra and Anwar Singh fired from their rifle and the shot hit Santosh in his head; thereafter when the others came, the accused went away in the vehicle. Santosh was taken in Tempo to Firozabad but he died in the way. The report was lodged.

Post mortem report shows that the deceased received (i) one Gutter shaped wound and fire arm entry of 18 cm X 16 cm on head, gun shot wound of entry, margins inverted, blackening and tattooing was present size 1 cm X 1 cm on middle of fore head, 2 cm above from  root of nose; gun shot wound of exit at occipital bone, 9 cm above from root of neck; margins averted;  (ii) gun shot wound of entry 1 cm X 1 cm on the front of left shoulder, margins were inverted; one piece of metallic bullet was found from back of right side of chest. The cause of death has been mentioned as a result of ante mortem injuries.

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has been wrongly implicated in this case and that the co accused Mahesh Chandra has been directed to be released on bail by order dated 2.9.2005 passed by another bench of this Court in bail application no. 10798 of 2005. Perusal of the bail order shows that Mahesh Chandra has been directed to be released on bail on the premise  that role of exhortation was assigned to him and his case was distinguishable from that of others. But the perusal of F.I.R. and the statements as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. show that Mahesh Chandra initially exhorted but thereafter fires made by Mahesh Chandra and Anwar Singh hit Santosh Kumar in the head.

Post mortem report shows that the deceased had at least two gun shot wounds of entry and the shots of two persons are alleged to have hit the deceased.

In the circumstances, the accused applicant cannot take any benefit of the bail granted to co accused Mahesh Chandra.

Learned counsel for the accused applicant has also contended that the accused applicant had no enmity with the deceased and he has been wrongly implicated in this case but the presence of the witnesses and the statements as made by them show the complicity of the accused and in the circumstances of the case, but without prejudice to the merits of the case, he is not entitled to bail and his application is liable to be rejected.

Bail application of the applicant named above is hereby rejected.

However,  learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the case and proceed under Section 309 Cr.P.C. It is expected that the accused shall cooperate in speedy trial. Learned Trial Court shall make every effort to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Learned Trial Court is further directed to take necessary coercive steps against the witnesses if necessary to ensure the presence of the witnesses.

Copy of this order be sent to learned Trial Court within a week.

Dated : 3.10.2005

RKS/10316/05


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.