Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GHAMANDI versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ghamandi v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 15189 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15935 (13 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. 15189 of 2006

Ghamandi..Vs....State of U.P.

.......

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.

This application has been filed by the applicant Ghamandi with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 222 of 2005, under Sections 302 I.P.C., P.S. Dhanari, District Budaun.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Prempal  at P.S. Dhanari, Budaun on 30.7.2005 at 1.00 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 29.7.2005 at about 11.30 p.m. The distance of the police station was about 7 kms from the alleged place of occurrence. It is alleged that 3 or 4 unknown miscreants came at the house of the first informant. The deceased Ompal was caught hold by 2 miscreants, on the protest  3rd miscreant caused firearm injuries on his person. The deceased Naubat Ram and Smt Shakuntala also came at the place of occurrence. On her hue and cry they were also shot dead by the miscreants. All the 3 deceased persons died on the spot after receiving gunshot injuries. The alleged occurrence was witnessed by the villagers and Sunita in a torch light. The I.O. recorded the statement of Smt Sunita on 2.8.2005. She disclosed the name of the applicant as an accused. It has been specifically alleged that her husband was shot dead by the applicant.

Heard Sri R.P.S. Chauhan 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)The naming of the applicant is after thought. The name of the witness Smt Sunita has been disclosed in the F.I.R. even then the applicant was not named in the F.I.R.

(ii)Smt Sunita filed an application under Sections 156(3) Cr. P. C. in the court of learned C.J.M., Budaun in which she has disclosed the name of the applicant and other persons also as accused whereas all the  names of the  accused as disclosed in the application under Sections 156(3) Cr.P.C. have not been  disclosed in  her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement of Smt Sunita.

(iii)The statement of Smt Sunita has been recorded on 2.8.2008. Her statement was not recorded on the date of lodging the F.I.R. Her statement is too much delayed.

(iv)The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case due to village partibandi, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.

In reply of the above contention the learned A.G.A submits that in the present case the F.I.R. has been promptly lodged within 1 ½ hours of the alleged occurrence in the same night. The distance of the police station was 7 kms from the alleged place of occurrence. Three persons have been shot dead. In such circumstances it was not possible to have conversations with Smt Sunita, whose husband has also been shot dead. There is no undue delay in recording the statement of Smt Sunita, who disclosed the name of the applicant by alleging that shot discharged by the applicant hit her husband and according to the post mortem examination report all the three deceased persons have received firearm injures. The gravity of the offence is too much. In case the applicant is released on bail he shall tamper with the evidence, therefore, he may not be released on bail.

      Considering the facts that in the present case three persons have been shot dead, the name of the applicant has been disclosed by Smt Sunita the wife of the one deceased, the gravity of the offence is too much and considering the other circumstances of the case and submissions 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 the applicant is not entitled for bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.

         Accordingly, the bail application is rejected

Dated: 13.9.2006

Rcv

                                                                 


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.