High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 11069 of 2005  RD-AH 5557 (10 November 2005)
Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.
Heard learned counsel for the accused applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Accused applicant Ram Kumar Singh son of Ram Pratap Singh has prayed for release on bail in Case Crime No. 48 of 2005 under Section 304 IPC, P.S. Harraiya, Districtkl Basti.
Prosecution case as unfolded in the F.I.R. lodged by Sita Saran Dubey on 14.2.2005 at 7.45 a.m. is that parents of Sachchidanand Dubey had died and his elder brothers were living in Bombay. However, Sachchidanand was living in the village alone. On 13.2.2005 at about 2 p.m., the complainant saw the accused Ram Kumar Singh having some scuffle with Sachchidanand. On the intervention of the complainant both went away. At that time Ram Kumar Singh said that Sachchidanand used to visit his house which was not proper but complainant had asked him to avoid visiting his house. In the night of 13.2.2005 accused applicant along with his brother and father belaboured Sachchidanand with Lathi and when he raised alarm Sheshdhar son of the complainant and one Vyasdhar of the village heard the noise and saw the incident in torch light as a result of injury received Sachchidanand died. Sheshdhar son of the complainant informed him about the incident and thereafter report was lodged. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is 17 kilometres.
Post mortem report shows that the deceased received as many as 19 injuries including lacerated wounds and abraded contusions.
Learned counsel for the accused applicant has contended that accused has been falsely implicated in this case and that the co accused Ram Pratap has been directed to be released on bail by order dated 21.4.2005 passed by another bench of this Court. He has further contended that there is contradiction in the statement of the witnesses and the F.I.R. as they have said that Ram Pratap was unarmed. Bail order of Ram Pratap as quoted in the Supplementary Affidavit shows that he was allowed bail as the witnesses stated that he was unarmed and therefore he could not cause injuries. The case of accused Ram Pratap is distinguishable as held in his bail order. Applicant cannot get any advantage of the bail granted to co accused. The incident was seen by the witnesses and there is no reason to discard their testimony at this stage. Post mortem report shows that deceased was severely thrashed.
In the circumstances of the case, but without prejudice to the merits of the case, accused is not entitled to bail and application is liable to be rejected.
Bail application of the accused applicant is hereby rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.