High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ashok v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 22822 of 2005  RD-AH 11390 (13 July 2006)
Court No. 54
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 22822 OF 2005.
Ashok Vs. State of U.P.
Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.
Heard Sri Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 21.3.2005 at 5.45 P.M. and the first information report was registered at 7.20 P.M. on the same day. The name of the present applicant is mentioned in the first information report along with two unknown persons. Sri Dilip Kumar has placed the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where the same story has been repeated. However, Parcha No. 5 of the case diary dated 5.4.2005 has been placed, wherein the statements of the witnesses Major Singh and Shishupal Singh have been recorded and they have given out the name of the co-accused Nem Singh and Pappu. The first informant was questioned by the Investigating Officer in Parcha No. 7 as to why he did not disclose the identity of the two co-accused which has been replied by the first informant that since he was threatened with dire consequences, due to fear he did not disclose their names in the first information report. It has been argued next that the motive assigned does not exist as the deceased or his family members have no concern whatsoever with the murder of the deceased by the applicant Ashok, therefore, the motive assigned by the prosecution is without any basis. The third argument is that in the inquest report, three Khokhas of 12 bore were found lying near the head of the deceased and also that the post mortem report reveals that injury nos. 1, 2 and 3 are entry wounds and injury no. 4 is a common exit wound which has been caused by DBBL gun. The witnesses have clearly stated in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the applicant was armed with rifle. The co-accused Nem Singh and Pappu were granted bail who are said to be armed with DBBL gun, therefore, the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing as that of the other co-accused who have been granted bail.
After hearing the counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State at length, it is clear that the name of the applicant Ashok was disclosed right at the initial stage. The witnesses in their statements have also maintained participation of the applicant having caused fire arm injuries to the deceased which resulted in his death. Besides, the occurrence is broad day light. There was prompt first information report and eye witness account, therefore, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail. The bail application is accordingly rejected.
In the end, counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant is in jail since considerable length of time and the trial is not in progress.
Learned Sessions Judge, Firozabad is directed to expedite and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him without granting undue adjournment to either parties unless and until compelling circumstances arise to do so.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.