Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AWDHESH SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Awdhesh Singh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 17764 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16173 (18 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. 17764 of 2006

Awdhesh Singh  Vs.  State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

This application has been filed by the applicant Awdhesh Singh   with the prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 16    of 2006 under sections 147,148,149,307,302/34  I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) SC.C./S.T.(P.A) Act  and section 7 of  U.P. Criminal Law Amendment Act   P.S. Dhanapur   district Chandauli.

The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by the applicant Ram Lakhan Ram at P.S. Dhanapur on5.3.2006 at about 12.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which  had occurred on 15.3.2006 at about 11.00 p.m., the distance of the police station was about 5 k.m. from the alleged place of occurrence, alleging therein that the first informant was belonging to Chamar Caste, on 15.3.2006 at about 11.00 a.m. the accused Desh Raj Singh hurled abuses to the deceased Ramapati due to the enmity of previous election, he was asked not to abuse then the co-accused Ganga Sagar, co-accused Bhullan alias Ramesh, co-accused Hansraj caused injuries by using lathi and danda blows on the person of Smt. Kaushalya, Achche Lal, Ram Lakhan and Dehuli. They were asked again not to beat then the applicant having a licensed rifle, co-accused Saheb Singh and Bablu Singh having unauthorised fire arm chased the first informant and others. Dilip Kumar and Dinesh have made attempt to pacify the matter but the applicant  and co-accused Saheb Singh, Bablu Singh discharged shots by their respective weapon, consequently deceased Ramapati, deceased Ram Nihore and injured Saraswati ran to save their lives but they were chased by the applicant and others discharged shots consequently Ramapati, deceased Ram Nihore sustained injuries, deceased Ramapati died instantaneously. Due to the above act done by the applicant and others  persons a panic was created and a atmosphere of fear and terror was created.

According to the post mortem examination report the deceased Ramapati received three ante mortem injuries in which injury no.1 was abraded contusion, injury no.2 was fire arm wound of entry and injury no.3 was fire arm wound of exit. The deceased Ram Nihore sustained two ante mortem injuries in which injury no. 1 was firearm wound of entry and its exit wound, injury no.2. Injured Dehuli sustained five injuries. Injured Sadani sustained three injuries. Injured Nageshwari Devi sustained one injury. Injured Saraswati sustained four injuries. Injured  Ram Lakhan sustained two injuries.

Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ram Lal Singh and Sri Lav Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Braham Singh and Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant:

1.That the prosecution story is false, concocted and highly improbable.

2.That the prosecution story is not corroborated by the medical evidence because according to the F.I.R. the applicant and other co-accused persons discharged shots from the back side but both of the deceased received injuries on front side. Therefore, the manner of the occurrence has been changed during investigation by alleging that the injuries were caused from the front side.

3.That according to the prosecution version the applicant was armed with licence rifle but the direction of the injuries are upward to downward which suggest that the injuries were not caused as alleged by the prosecution.

4.That the prosecution story is not corroborated by the spot inspect note and the site plan.

5.That the alleged motive is absolutely false, baseless because the previous election was not contested by any of the first informant side, therefore, there was no question of enmity.

6.That the applicant is a peaceful person. He is not a previous convict and not wanted in any other case. Therefore, he may be released on bail.

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

I.That the alleged occurrence had taken place in a broad daylight. Its F.I.R. has been lodged within 1,1/2 hours. The distance of the police station was about 5 k.m. Specific role of causing injury by rifle has been assigned to the applicant. In this case two persons have lost their lives. The injuries were caused by the fire arm and several persons are injured.

II.That the applicant is a very powerful man and the first informant and injured persons belong to scheduled cast, weaker section of the society and the applicant and other co-accused persons have committed the alleged offence without any reason,  in order to establish his supremacy. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he shall temper with evidence.  Therefore, he may not be released on bail

Considering the facts that the alleged occurrence had taken place in broad day light, F.I.R. was promptly lodged, role of causing injury by rifle has been assigned to the applicant, two persons have lost their lives, several persons are injured, the cause of death was due to fire arm injury and there are injured witnesses to support the prosecution story, the gravity of offence is too much and other facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by both side, 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 this application is rejected.

Dt. 18.9.2006

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.