High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Jagdish v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 9590 of 2005  RD-AH 5411 (9 November 2005)
Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the accused applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Accused applicant Jagdish son of Salig Ram has prayed for release on bail in case Crime No. 102 of 2005 under Sections 394/302 IPC, P.S. Khandauli, district Agra.
Prosecution case is that in the night of 31/1.4.2005, the complainant Smt. Babli wife of Jagdish Jatav was sleeping in a room in the house. At that time her father in law, Bissa Ram, mother in law Anar Devi, Nanad Machla wife of Balveer Singh were sleeping in the Chappar of the house. At about 12.30 a.m., four Badmash armed with Lathi, Kulhari and Gun came there and out of them three broke open the door and they entered the house. They started beating the father in law, mother in law and nanad of the complainant and caused them injuries. They also looted the property. Thereafter they got the door of the room of the complainant opened and took Rs. 15,000/- and ornaments. In the F.I.R. no one was named; however, it was mentioned that these persons had committed dacoity at the residence of other villagers also. The injured persons were shifted to hospital and there injury reports shows that they were caused injuries on their head. Subsequently father in law of the complainant succumbed to his injuries. Smt. Anar Devi when regained consciousness, stated in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that she had identified one of the Badmash as Jagdish. She knew her from before as he used to visit Chiranji in the Village. Smt. Machla also stated in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that one of the Badmash was Jagdish, who was wearing uniform and he gave kulhari blow on the head of her father. Smt. Babli was further interrogated by the Investigating Officer and she stated that she had also identified Jagdish but was disturbed on account of serious condition of her father in law and mother in law and therefore did not state the name of Jagdish in her first statement.
Learned counsel for the accused applicant has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated and that he was not identified at the place and was also not put up for test identification. Learned counsel for the accused applicant has further contended that applicant is Home Guard attached with the Police Station Khandauli and is in service for the last 15 years and he has been falsely implicated. But the learned A.G.A. has contended that Smt. Anar Devi and Machla after regaining consciousness stated about the presence of the accused applicant at the time of the incident and the role played by him and there was no necessity to get the accused identified in test identification parade. He has also contended that there is no reason for false implication of the accused applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, accused is not entitled to bail and his application is liable to be rejected.
Bail application of the accused is hereby rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.