Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VINAY @ BINNA AND OTHER versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vinay @ Binna And Other v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 9452 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 4966 (26 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 learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Accused applicants Vinay @ Binna and Kallu both sons of Girraj Kishore have prayed for release on bail in case Crime No. 62205050103 of 2005 under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Banna Devi, district Aligarh.

Prosecution case is that Anshu and Gopal, the sons of the complainant Rajesh Kumar had taken a room on rent in the house of Durjan Singh and used to live there as they were working in Power Coating Plant, Bannadevi. On 25.2.2005 his son Anshu had come to the village and Vinay @ Binna and Kallu accused applicant had also come with him. They all left on the pretext of going to exhibition in Aligarh. At about 8 p.m. on 25.2.2005. Gopal the elder son of the complainant went to the room and saw that Binna, Kallu and one Dhiru were taking liquor along with Anshu. Gopal asked them as to what they were doing and thereafter he left for exhibition. He returned at about 4 a.m. and found the dead body of Anshu in the room. His neck had been cut and a rope was also tied around the neck. Gopal told this fact to his father who came to the room of Anshu and found the dead body of his son Kuldeep who lives nearby told the complainant that in the night at about 1 a.m. He had seen the accused applicants and Dhiru coming out of room of Anshu. According to the complainant the accused had enmity with Anshu because 6-7 months earlier Anshu had sold his Heropuch to Dhiru and inspite of several demands Dhiru had not made the payment. Six to seven months earlier Bhilu, brother of Dhiru had died as a result of fall from the train and Dhiru apprehended that Anshu was responsible for the murder of his brother. The complainant named these accused persons and Dhiru in the F.I.R.

Post mortem report shows that deceased had incised wound 12 cm X 5cm X cartilege over the neck, lower part and a ligature mark 30 cm X 2 cm all around neck. Cause of death was on accunt of ante mortem injuries.

Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case on account of suspicion only and that there is no cogent evidence against them.

Learned A.G.A. has contended that there is evidence of last seen as well as accused had the motive against the deceased. According to him Gopal brother of the deceased had seen the accused applicants with the deceased in his room taking liquor and thereafter accused persons were seen coming out of the room at about 1.00 a.m. By Kuldeep. Kuldeep has stated under Section 161 Cr.P.C. That when he was going to his house at about 12.30 a.m. after his return from the exhibition, he saw the accused persons  coming out of the room of Anshu. He had told this fact to the father of the deceased. Statement of Smt. Ompyari wife of Durjan Singh shows that she saw the accused persons in the room of Anshu with him on 25.2.2005. She has also ststed about the coming of Ram Gopal and then she saw the dead body in the night in the room.

Learned A.G.A. has further contended that Kuldeep and Smt. Ompyari are independent witnesses and the statements of these witnesses as well as that of Gopal show the complicity of these accused persons in this crime.

In the circumstances, but  without prejudice to the merits of the case, accused are not entitled to bail and application is liable to be rejected at this stage.

Bail application of the accused 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 four 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: 27.10.2005

RKS/9452/05


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.