High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sunder Singh And Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 13597 of 2006  RD-AH 16834 (25 September 2006)
Court no. 47
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13597 of 2006
Sunder Singh and another Vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
This application has been moved by Sunder Singh, Krishna Pratap Singh, Ram Asrey and Bholu but the learned counsel for the applicants has deleted the names of the applicant Krishna Pratap Singh and Bholu from the array of the applicant.
The applicants Sunder Singh and Ram Asrey have filed this application with a prayer that they may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 547 of 2006 under sections 147,148,149 and 302 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Lalitpur district Lalitpur.
The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Pappu at P.S. Kotwali Lalitpur on 17.4.2006 at about 6.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 17.4.2006 at about 5.00 p.m. The distance of the police station was about 1,1/2 k.m. from the alleged place of occurrence. The F.I.R. has been lodged against 8 known and two unknown miscreants alleging therein that on 17.4.2006 at about 5.00 p.m. the applicant and other co-accused persons armed with rifle, country made pistol and revolver came at the house of the first informant and asked to take out the gate of the boundary and they started taking out the gate of the boundary, which was objected by the deceased Ravindra Pratap Singh, then the applicant and other co-accused persons discharged shots by their rifle, revolver and country made pistol consequently, the deceased received injures and died instantaneously. Due to the commission of the alleged offence a panic was created and shops were closed.
According to the Post Mortem Examination Report, the deceased had received six gun shot wounds of entry and two wounds of exit. All the injuries were oval shaped.
Heard Sri G.C. Saxena and Sri N.K. Pandey and Sudha Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and Sri Apul Misra, 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. The deceased and his father were doing stone crushing, illegal foresting and mining and they were having a telescopic rifle, 9 mm American pistol and a number of unauthorized illegal firearms and their family known as Mafia family.
2.That the prosecution story is not corroborated by medical evidence because according to the prosecution version the accused were 10 in number but the injuries received by the deceased was 6 in number and all the injuries were oval shaped which reflected that all the injuries were caused by one fire arm.
3.That the applicant Sunder Singh was the President of the United Janta Dal on the date of alleged occurrence. He was in Agra City. He had gone to submit the application before the Joint Chief Explosive Controller Agra. He has obtained a Bank draft of I.C.IC.I Bank after 3.00 p.m. and deposited the same along with the application before the Joint Chief Explosive Controller, Agra about 5.00 p.m. on 15.4.2006 and he has traveled by a train on 17.4.20006.
4.That the prosecution story is not corroborated by the spot inspection and site plan because one telescopic rifle along with belt of cartridges was found near the dead body of the deceased. One mobile phone and one 9 mm factory made pistol were also found near the dead body, which belies the whole prosecution story.
5.That the manner of occurrence has also been changed during investigation and firing took place from the second floor of the house of the applicant Sunder Singh whereas the empty cartridge of 315 bore, 32 bore and 9 mm pistol were found at place ''B', which shows that the firing had taken place at place ''B' and not from the place ''A '
6.That the F.I.R. of this case is ante timed, it was not in existence at the time of preparation of the inquest report. It was prepared before 17.4.2006 at 7.40 p.m. in which the parties name is missing, crime number and sections have been interpolated. The deceased was having enmity with one Tilak Singh Yadav who lodged the report that Yadavas of Samajwadi Party are the land Mafia and they wanted to grab the land of the applicant and the deceased. The proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. was also initiated against the deceased Tilak Singh Yadav and others which are pending in the court of S.D.M. Lalitpur and due to this enmity the applicant has been falsely implicated
7.That the applicants are men of peace. They are not previous convict and there is no likelihood of their absconding and tempering with the evidence. Therefore, they may be released on bail.
In reply to the above contentions it is submitted by the learned A.G.A.
I.That the alleged occurrence had taken place in broad day light in the City area. The F.I.R. has been promptly lodged within half an hour.
II.That specific role of firing was assigned to the applicants and other co-accused persons. The deceased received six firearm wounds of entry. At this state it is very difficult to ascertain that by which specific firearm the injuries were caused.
III.That the alleged occurrence had taken place in the presence of the witnesses. The plea of alibi may be taken at the stage of trial.
IV.That there is no such abnormality to show that the F.I.R. is ante timed.
V.That the applicants were having specific motive to commit the alleged offence and the prosecution story is fully corroborated with the medical evidence.
VI.That the presence of rifle, 9 mm pistol at the alleged place of occurrence do not belie the prosecution story. No other version has come forward. In case the applicant is released on bail, they shall temper with the evidence.
Considering the fact that the alleged occurrence had taken place in broad day light in City Area, F.I.R. was promptly lodged, the deceased has received 6 gunshot wound of entry, enmity is admitted, the gravity is too much, 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, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.
Accordingly this application is rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.