High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Suraj Singh And Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 21643 of 2005  RD-AH 7286 (9 December 2005)
Court No. 19
Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 21643 of 2005
Suraj Singh and others .....Vs.....State of U.P.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Singh, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri D.S.Bohra, learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the material on record.
The applicants Suraj Singh, Sukh Pal, Kanhiya and Mani are involved in case crime No. 140/425 of 2005, for the offence under Sections 147,148,149,307 and 302, I.P.C, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, district Builandshahr.
It is alleged that on 21.9.2005 at about 4.30 p.m. one Bharat Singh ( non applicant) came to the house of complainat's brother (deceased Mukeem). Bharat Singh asked Mukeem to accompany him to his house for hair cutting. Mukeem complained that Bharat Singh does not pay the charges for hair cutting. However, Bharat Singh persuaded and took him on his Motor Cycle. One Rashid alias Ayyub (a mason by profession) also accompanied them. After sometime son of the deceased came to the house and informed that he had seen accused Bharat Singh along with 11 other co-accused, who have beating deceased Mukeem and Mistri Ayyub. The complainant reached the place of occurrence and found his brother dead and Ayyub seriously injured. In the post mortem report 6 injuries were found on the body of the deceased, (lacerated wounds and contusions ) Injured Rashid received 7 injuries also lacerated wounds and contusion. It is alleged that 4 persons, including main accused Bharat Singh, were armed with knife and remaining 8 persons, including 4 persons were having lathi and danda.
In the context of genuineness of the prosecution case and the supporting evidence it is argued that the main accused Bharat Singh to whom the main motive has been assigned is said to be armed with knife along with 3 other companions, but there is not even a single knife injury either on the body of the deceased or the injured. Secondly, it is argued that at this stage it is not ascertainable as to which of the 8 accused caused fatal / other injuries to whom. It is also emphasized that it is not believable that son of the deceased, instead of making any other efforts to save his father, rushed to the house to inform others. In respect of reasonable apprehension of tampering with the prosecution witnesses it is pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history. The bail is, however, opposed on the ground that the injuries suffered by the deceased and the injured witnesses corroborate the prosecution story and the F.I.R. has been lodged promptly.
The bail was, however, opposed by the learned A.G.A. and also learned private counsel for the complainant.
The points pertaining to nature of accusation, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction of
the Court in support of the charge and genuineness of the prosecution were duly considered.
In view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration some of the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant in respect of the points discussed herein above, without prejudice to the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicants be enlarged on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.