Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIVEK MALIK @ VICKI versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vivek Malik @ Vicki v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 15059 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15331 (4 September 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 47

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15059 of 2006

Vivek Malik @ Vicki  Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

This application has been filed by the applicant Vivek Malik @ Vicki  with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 70  of 2006 under sections 302,307/34 I.P.C .P.S. Kotwali Nagar  district Bulandshahar.

The prosecution story in brief is that F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Smt. Geeta Chaudhary at P.S. Kotwali Nagar on 19.2.2005 at 10.30 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 19.2.2005 at 10.a.m. The F.I.R. has been lodged against the co-accused Dharmendra  @ Munnu, Virendra @ Bablu, Manoj and Sardar Gurmit alleging therein that on 19.2.2005 at about 10.00 a.m. Ravindra Pal Singh  was standing  at the gate of his house where four known and two unknown miscreants armed with firm arm came there. The co-accused Dharmendra was armed with rifle, co-accused Virendra was armed with pistol, co-accused Manoj was armed with pistol and co-accused Sardar Gurmit was armed with a country made pistol, they fired indiscriminately at the injured Ravindra Pal Singh who after receiving the fell down.  The deceased Aasif came in his rescue and caught hold a   miscreant, indiscriminate firing was done at him also  but after receiving the injuries he died instantaneously. After committing the aforesaid offence the miscreants left the place of occurrence by a car. The alleged occurrence was witnessed by Manoj, Monu   Shamshad and others. Thereafter the injured Ravindra Pal Singh also received gun shot injury.

Heard Sri Viresh Misra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sunil Vashisth, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri P.K. Srivasvata learned counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant

1.That the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. whereas four co-accused persons are named in the F.I.R.

2.That during investigation the I.O. recorded the statement of the witnesses shown in the F.I.R. as Raju, Devendra, Manoj and Shamshad. Thereafter, the statement of Vinod Chaudhary, brother of the injured has been recorded but they did not disclose the name of the applicant as an accused whereas the applicant was known to the first informant and other witnesses because the house of Sri Ram Singh Sirohi, maternal uncle of the applicant is adjacent to the house of the first informant. The applicant was frequently visiting the house of his maternal uncle, on several occasions, the first informant her husband Ravindra Pal Singh Vinod Chaudhary and others have met him. The applicant has participated  in some of the  functions of Sri Ram Singh Sirohi. If the applicant was involved in the alleged, offence his name would have been mentioned in the F.I.R.

3.That during investigation the statement of the injured Ravindra Pal Singh was recorded on 4.3.2005 who almost stated the same fact as stated by the first informant in their statement but he disclosed the name of the applicant and it was alleged that he was having country made pistol but according to the medical examination report the injured was admitted to the hospital on 19.2.2005 at that time he was conscious but he did not disclose the name of the applicant to anybody. Contrary to this he gave statement to the Doctor that two unknown persons have fired at him.

4.That the applicant has not been put up for identification.

5.That it is further alleged that the car used in the commission of the offence was related to the applicant whereas that car was not in the name of applicant but given to the applicant in marriage by his father in law. The same was sold by the applicant on 12.2.2003 to Dharmendra Sirohi. Thereafter the applicant purchased another car.  

6.That the applicant has been falsely implicated only on the basis of doubt and suspicion. The applicant was having no motive to commit the alleged offence.

7.That the injured Ravindra Pal Chaudhary along with Vinod Kumar Chaudhary are  having long criminal history and they have a lot of enmity. The injured Ravindra Pal Singh has been accused in case crime no. 860 of 1986 under sections 147,149,302 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, case crime no. 42 of 1986, under section 307 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, case crime no.177 of 1993 under section 147,148,149, 302 and 307  I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Nagar, case crime no. 465 of 1993 under section 294 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Nagar, case crime no. 45 of 1995 under sections 302,120 I.P.C. Rishikesh Dehradun and case crime no. 568 of 2000 under section 323,504 and 506 I.P.C. and   Vinod Kumar Chaudhary has been accused in 16 cases including the cases of murder.

8.That the matter was investigated and this case was transferred to C.B.C.I.D. who started the investigation and came to the conclusion that two named accused persons Monoj son of Bable and Sardar Gurmit were falsely implicated, therefore, they were exonerated.  In such a situation, no reliance can be placed at the statement of the witnesses, who named the applicant.

9.That the applicant is an innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated due to doubt and suspicion, hence he may be released.

In reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant:

I.That prior the alleged incident on 29.7.2003 at 4.20 p.m. Jitendra @ Pucchi, Dharmendra Singh, Virendra Singh sons of Dalel Singh and Manoj son of Faqira have committed the offence in which Ravindra Pal Singh sustained injuries and Sheru Singh @ Satyendra Singh was murdered. In other cases Jitendra Singh is still in Jail and remaining co-accused Dharmendra Singh, Virendra Singh are still absconding and the Government has announced  award of Rs. 2500/- each.

II.That the bail application of Jitendra Singh has already been rejected by this court and  to finish the evidence of this case brother of Jitendra Singh who is absconding along with the applicant and others co-accused persons attacked the injured with the intention to commit his murder so that  his evidence may not be recorded in the court.

III.That the applicant is relative of the other co-accused Dharmendra Singh and Virendra Singh because he had sold his car to Dharmendra.

IV.That in the present case the applicant is in jail and other co-accused persons are absconding.  In case, the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence.

V.That the first informant  is a house hold lady. She disclose the name of other co-accused in the F.I.R. who were known to her  by name but the applicant's name was not known to her that is why his name could not be disclosed  in the F.I.R. The injured Ravindra Pal Singh has disclosed the name of the applicant in a statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 4.3.2005 at Apollo Hospital, New Delhi.

VI.That the entry made by the doctor in the medical report that the injury was caused by  two unknown persons was not relevant because no Dying Declaration of the injured was recorded. Therefore, the applicant cannot be released on bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the seriousness  of the offence and the conduct the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.

Dt. 4.9.2006

NA


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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