High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Tinna v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3647 of 2005  RD-AH 19645 (20 November 2006)
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.3647-2005
Tinna Versus State of U.P.
Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.
The applicant Tinna has applied for his release on bail in case crime No. 461 of 2004, S.T. No.333 of 2004, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504 I.P.C, Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj. His bail prayer has been rejected by the Sessions Judge vide his order dated 10.12.2004 (annexure no.8).
The prosecution allegations in short against the applicant is that the applicant along with Sukhdev, Pintoo, Ram Rais and Pappu was playing dice on 30.6.2004 and in that dice they all of a sudden started indulging into tiradic altercation. Hearing the said altercation informant Ved Prakash along with his brother Prayag Dutt Dubey and nephews, namely, Prabha Shankar, Girja Shankar, Arun Shankar, Shiv Bisara and Rajiv Kumar went to the spot at 9.00 P.M. and inquired as to why the altercation was going between them. On enquiry being made the aforesaid persons started vetuparizing the inquirers. Prayag Dutt Dubey asked them to desist from vetuparizing on which the present applicant Tinna fired a shot at Prayag Dutt Dubey, which hit him on his chest. The other persons tried to apprehend Tinna (present applicant) but another accused Allaha fired at Prabha Shankar and Arun Shankar as a result of which both of them sustained firearm injures. Prayag Dutt Dubey died on the spot. The accused persons made there escape good after the said incident. The informant Ved Prakash Dubey got the F.I.R. scribed through Sri S.C. Yadav and lodged it at Police Station Kotwali Kannauj at 10.30 P.M. as crime number and sections mentioned above. The autopsy report of the deceased Prayag Dutt Dubey dated 1.7.2004 indicate that he had received a single firearm wound of injury 35x32 c.m. on chest, face, neck and right ear. The injury was muscle and chest cavity deep. His third and fourth ribs were found fractured with other internal damages. On the aforesaid fact the counsel for the applicant has pressed this bail application of the applicant.
Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the applicant and the leaned A.G.A.
Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the applicant contended that incident had taken place in the night at 9.00 P.M. without any source of light being mentioned in the F.I.R. and infact the deceased was shot at from a great distance when he was all alone and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the said case. He further contended that the applicant is in jail since 22.7.2004 and more than two yeas have elapsed and the trial court has not been concluded as yet. He further submitted that in this case there is no independent witnesses and all the witnesses are related with each other.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand contended that the applicant is the main shooter and there are two injured eyewitnesses who have supported the prosecution case besides the informant. He further contended that the applicant got the firearm recovered at his pointing out.
I have considered the submissions in my view it is not a fit case for bail. The bail prayer is declined. Hence, the bail application of the applicant is rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.