Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Manoj Kumar v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 7540 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19909 (23 November 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).



Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.7540-2006

Manoj Kumar Versus State of U.P.

Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.

This bail application has been filed by applicant Manoj Kumar who is an accused in case crime no. 1280 of 2005, under Sections 307, 302 I.P.C., P.S. Baraut, District Baghpat.

The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by the applicant himself on 24.8.2005 at 10.30 P.M. in respect of an incident alleged to have been taken place on the same day at 8.00 P.M. In the said F.I.R., which was scribed by the applicant himself it is alleged that the applicant along with Sarvendra and Ananad Pal was going to Badarkha from Binoli on the motorcycle of Sarvendra. At 8.00 P.M. when they reached near the Culvet between Malkhpur and Chawbali then all of a sudden from the left side some miscreants appeared and hit Anand Pal on his head by danda who was driving the motorcycle. The motorcycle lost its balance and fell down. Meanwhile, from behind a passenger bus was coming. The applicant jumped into the bus. The miscreants fired at Sarvendra and Anand Pal. The applicant went to Binoli and inform the people an accompanied by them he came back on the spot. From the spot he brought the injured Anand Pal and Sarvendra to doctor Katiyar who declared Sarvendra dead and referred Anand Pal to District Hospital, Meerut. He further averred that the relatives of the injured and the deceased were informed by him and he and other passengers of the bus had seen the miscreants very well and can recognize them. The postmortem of the deceased Sarvendra dated 25.8.2005 indicate that he has sustained firearm injury on face, neck and abdomen with a gunshot wound of exit and the cause of his death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injures. The medical report of Anand also indicate that he had also sustained firearm injures. He had also received fractured of cervical vertebra and his right mandibular condyle was also fractured. All injuries of the injured Anand Pal were dangers to life. The investigation revealed that it was the applicant who had hatched up the conspiracy and got the deceased murdered and the injured sustained injuries. On these facts the applied has pressed for his bail.

Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the real culprits have been shielded by the Investigating Officer and the applicant has been falsely implicated very belatedly on 1.9.2005 when the occurrence is said to have taken place on 24.8.2005. He further contended that 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the injured was also recorded very belatedly on 13.9.2005 after a gap of 20 days from the date of incident. He further submitted that the investigation is tainted and cooked up, as there has been certain interpolations made in the case diary by the Investigation Officer. He invited the attention on page 32 to 35 of the bail application, which indicates that the serial number of the pages of the case diary has been written in ink in respect of the last three letters. He further submitted that there was absolutely nothing on record to suggest that the injured was not able to speak and therefore, his belated examination is ample proof of the fact that the applicant has been falsely implicated.

Learned A.G.A. as well as Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the informant on the other hand contended that in this case the applicant had got the motive to commit the murder of the deceased. He further submitted that the pages in the case diary were not changed and infact the last three digits were mildly printed and therefore, the same was only brought forth. They further submitted that the applicant was the main conspirator and in fact he also participated in the incident. They further submitted that the presence of injured eyewitnesses on the spot is not doubtful and they have specifically stated that it was the applicant who hatched up the conspiracy and murder the deceased. They further stated that Anand Pal in this statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly stated that it was the applicant who is the main culprit. They further submitted that injured Anand Pal has sustained injures in the mouth and therefore, was unable to speak and consequently his 161 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded belatedly. They further submitted that there was no reason for false implication of the applicant.

I have considered the rival submissions. in my view, the injured person has named the applicant as the prime accused who had hatched up the conspiracy. At this stage cannot be disbelieved. I do not find any reason to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, the bail prayer is declined. The bail prayer is rejected.




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.