High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Maharaj Singh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 18325 of 2006  RD-AH 16050 (14 September 2006)
Court no. 47
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18325 of 2006
Maharaj Singh..........Vs.............State of U.P. .............
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.
This application has been filed by the applicant Maharaj Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime no. 365 of 2005, under sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 302, 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/25/27, 4/25/27 of the Arms Act, P.S. Captainganj District Kushinagar.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Abhay Pratap Singh at P.S. Captanganj on 26.9.2005 at 8.45 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 26.9.2005 at about 6.00 p.m. The distance of the police station was about 11 kms from the alleged place of occurrence The F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and 5 other co-accused persons alleging therein that the first informant and his father deceased Rajendra Singh, Daya Nand and Vinod were going towards the bridge canal, in the way all of sudden the applicant and 5 other co-accused persons armed with country made pistol, Ganasa and knife, came out and they caught hold the deceased, the first informant and witnesses Dayanand and Vinod tried to save the life of the deceased, but they were pushed back by accused persons and the applicant caused the firearm injury on the persons of the deceased by using the country made pistol, thereafter, the deceased was dragged to the door of Vishun Dayal by them, where the injuries were caused on his person by using ganasa and knife blows. On the hue and cry the other people also came at the place of the occurrence, but the accused persons fled away. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had received 11 ante mortem injures in which injury no. 1 was gunshot wound of entry, its exit wound was injury no. 2, injuries no. 3 to 10 were incised wounds and injury no. 11 was lacerated wound.
Heard Sri S.P.S. Raghav Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anil Raghav 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 presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful, because nobody received any injury whereas there was a common motive against them also. According to the F.I.R. no motive to commit the murder of the deceased has been shown.
(ii) The prosecution story is not corroborated by post mortem examination report because the deceased had not received any injury caused due to dragging, therefore, the story of dragging is absolutely false and frivolous. It has been shown only to collect the eye witness.
(iii) The role of causing injury by firearm is assigned to the applicant whereas two incised wounds were fatal for causing the death of the deceased.
(iv) During investigation the first informant, witness Hardev and witness Dayanand have been interrogated. There is no independent witness of locality to support the prosecution story.
(v)The F.I.R. is ante timed. It was not in existence at the time of preparation of inquest report. One of the witness Manish Kumar is the witness of panchayatnama also. In panchayatnama name of the weapon has not been mentioned and there is over writing in the time of lodging the F.I.R. and the panchayatnama was prepared on 27.9.2005. It shows that till the morning of 27.9.2005 the F.I.R. was not in existence.
(vi) The deceased was murdered in dark hours of night by some unknown persons and nobody had seen that how and what manners the deceased was murdered.
(vii) The wireless message was sent to the police control room when the deceased was killed by firing without mentioning the name of the co-accused persons.
(viii) The applicant is old man aged about 75 years . He is having a weak eyesight, even he is not in a position to identify any person in day light also and he is ailing also, therefore, he may be released on bail.
In reply of the above contention the learned A.G.A. submits that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 26.9.2005 at about 6.00 p.m. Its F.I.R. was promptly lodged within 2.45 hours. The distance of police station was 11 kms from the alleged place of occurrence. The applicant is main accused. It has been specifically alleged that he has caused firearm injury, which is at the abdomen and he is not aged about 70 years. He is hale and hearty person. He is having a good eyesight. In case he is released on bail he shall tamper with the evidence, therefore, he may not be released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and the fact that the active role of causing injury by firearm has been assigned to the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.