High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shailendra @ Vikki v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 17986 of 2006  RD-AH 16726 (22 September 2006)
Court No. 47
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17986 of 2006
Shailendra alias Vikki Vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
This application has been filed by the applicant Shailendra alias Vikki with the prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 37 of 2006 under sections147,148,149,302,307,452,427,341,504 and 506 I.P.C. P.S. Garhi Pukhta district Muzaffarnagar.
The prosecution story in brief is that F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Mahak Singh at P.S. Garhi Pukhta on 15.3.2006 at about 10.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 15.3.2006 at about 6.00 p.m. The distance of the police station was 3 k.m. from the alleged place of occurrence. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and 10 other co-accused persons alleging therein that there had been an election of Village Pradhan in the village prior the alleged occurrence in whcih Smt. Sushila wife of the co-accused Suresh and Smt. Kavita wife of Rohtash were the main contestants. The family of the first informant had supported Smt. Kavita who was declared elected. Therefore, co-accused Suresh and others were bearing enmity from the first informant and his family. The husband of Pradhan Smt. Kavita had gone to the house of the first informant. He has parked his Yamaha motor cycle in front of his house, one Sudhir, a friend of first informant's son too had come to his house on motorcycle, same was parked near the motor cycle of Rohtash. The first informant along with his nephew were sitting inside the house in the courtyard and they were having some conversation. In the meantime co-accused Suresh, co-accused Rishi Pal armed with rifle, applicant, co-accused Raviraj, co-accused Satyendra and co-accused Dhan Prakash armed with country made pistol, co-accused Vinay alias Manoj, Sukhpal and Narendra armed with lathi and co-accused Manoj and Satyedra armed with guns entered into the house of the first informant and at the exhortation of the co-accused Rishiraj the applicant and others co-accused persons opened fire by their respective fire arms and co-accused Sukh Pal and Vinay alias Manoj and Narendra used lathi blows. Due to the firing Narayan alias Chintoo, Kunwar Pal, Hari Kishan and first informant himself sustained serious fire arm injuries while Krishna Devi, Radhey Shyam, Alka, Yashpal and Awadhesh sustained injuries caused by sharp edged weapon and the lathies. Thereafter the accused persons damaged the motor cycle which was parked outside the house. The deceased Narayan alias Chintoo was taken to Government Hospital Shamli for treatment who succumbed to his injuries in the way. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged.
According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had received 8 ante mortem injuries. Injury no.1 is a gun shot wound of entry and its exit wound is injury no.2. Injury no. 3 is tattooing mark on the neck, face and arm etc. Injuries nos. 4 to 8 are contusion. Injured Kunwar Pal has received one lacerated wound on the abdomen; it was a firearm injury. Injured Mahak Singh received three injuries in which injury no.1 was lacerated wound through and through it was a firearm injury. Injury nos. 2 and 3 were red contusions. Injured Hari Kishan sustained two injuries. Injury no.1 was lacerated wound. The depth could not be probed, it was a firm arm injury. Injury no. 2 was abrasion. Injured Awadhesh also sustained two injuries in which injury no.1 was lacerated wound on the head; it was also firearm injury. Injury no.2 was abrasion. Injured Yashpal Singh also sustained two injuries. Injury no.1 was lacerated wound on the right side of the head and injury no.2 was read contusion. Alka has received one lacerated wound through and through on the right side of the face and injured Radhey Shyam received one lacerated wound on the right side of forehead. The depth could not be probed, which was caused by the firearm. Smt. Krishna Devi received one lacerated wound on the right side of head.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant:
1.That the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated due to village party bandi.
2.That according to the prosecution version, first of all, injured and deceased were taken to the hospital Shamli thereafter F.I.R. was lodged. It was lodged on 15.3.2006 at about 10.30 p.m. but according to the medical examination report injured persons Kunwar Pal, Mahak Singh, Hari Krishna, Awadesh, Yash Pal were medically examined on 15.3.2006 before the time of alleged occurrence but the injured Alka was medically examined on 15.3.2006 at10.20 p.m., Radhey Shaym was examined on 10.25 p.m. and Smt. Krishna Devi was examined on 10.25 p.m. which belies the whole prosecution story.
3.That according to the post mortem examination report, there was only one gun shot wound of entry. Other injuries were caused by hard and blunt object but it has not been specified whose shot hit the deceased even the injured who received the firearm injuries, have not specifically alleged that whose shot hit them. According to the allegation made against the applicant he was armed with country made pistol and three others co-accused persons were armed with lathi and two persons were armed with rifle.
4.That the F.I.R. is ante timed, it was not in existence at the time for preparation of the inquest report. In this case 11 persons have been named in the F.I.R., which shows that some persons have been falsely implicated.
5.That there are general allegations against the applicant and other co-accused persons. Co-accused Surendra Pal, who was shown to be armed with lathi has been released on bail, therefore, the applicant may also be released on bail.
In reply to the above contentions it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. :
I.That in the present case one person has lost his life and 8 persons have sustained injuries. The accused persons have opened fire indiscriminately consequently the deceased and others injured received injuries. In such a situation it cannot be specified as to whose shot hit the deceased and the injured.
II.That the applicant was having motive to commit the alleged offence. The act done by the applicant and other co-accused persons is indicative of highhandedness.
III.That the prosecution story is fully corroborated with medical evidence. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he may temper with evidence. Therefore, he may not be released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the gravity of the offence, 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, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.
Accordingly the bail application is rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.