Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ram Bahadur v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3553 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10349 (25 May 2006)


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).



Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 3553 of 2006

Ram Bahadur...Vs...State of U.P.


Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.          

          This application is filed by  applicant Ram Bahadur with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 652 of 2005,  under Sections 307,302, 504  and 506  I.P.C., P.S. Bhogaon, District Mainpuri.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that in the present case the F.I.R. has been lodged by one Subedar Singh  at P.S. Bhogaon, district Mainpuri on 26.8.2005 at 9.15 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred  on 26.8.2005  at about 8.00 p.m. The distance of the police station was about 8 km from the place of occurrence. The F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 307, 506 and 504 I.P.C., but subsequently the injured Amit Kumar alias Shrawan Kumar died. Thereafter, under Section 302 I.P.C. was added. It is alleged that about 1 ½  month prior to the alleged occurrence there had been some altercation between the applicant and the deceased. Its information was given to the police station concerned.  On 26.8.2005 the Janmashtami festival celebration was going on in a temple. The deceased was also lying at the door. At about 8.00 p.m.  on the exhortation of co-accused Ajmer Singh and Mahesh the applicant discharged a shot which hit the injured and after extending a threat the applicant and other co-accused persons left the place of the occurrence. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged by the applicant. According to the medical examination report the deceased was rushed to the hospital by a police constable and he was examined on 26.8.2005 at 10.05 p.m. and he had received firearm wound of entry, cavity deep over the lower part of outer back having its exit wound. The injury was caused by the firearm.

Heard Sri V.K. Sharma and Sri Bhaiya Ram learned counsel for the applicant  and  learned A.G.A. for the state of U.P.

         It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that:-

(i)there was no sufficient motive and intention for the applicant to commit the alleged  offence.

(ii)there is no independent witness to support the prosecution story. All the witnesses are family members of the deceased.

(iii) The F.I.R. is ante timed. It was lodged after great thought and consultation.

(iv) It is a case in which some body came in the night and caused the injuries from the back side and ran away. There was no opportunity even to the injured to witness the alleged incident.

(v)The applicant is innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated due to party bandi only on the basis of doubt and suspicion, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.

It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that the applicant is a main accused, who caused the firearm injuries. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged. The statement of the deceased was recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. In which he clearly stated that the applicant caused injury on his person. There was strong motive for the applicant to cause the injuries. The alleged occurrence was witnessed by many persons, because Janmashtami festival was celebrating and there was sufficient source of light. After collecting the credible evidence the charge sheet has been submitted by the I.O. In case the applicant is released on bail he may abscond or tamper with the evidence. In such circumstances the applicant may not be released on bail.

           Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and  without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.              

           According this bail application is rejected.

Dated: 25.5.2006




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.