Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANTOSH versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Santosh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 18514 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16238 (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. 18514 of 2006

Santosh.....Vs......State of U.P.

.......

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.

This application has been filed by the applicant Santosh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 246 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 I.P.C., P.S. Kasganj, District  Etah.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Sri Suresh Chandra at P.S. Kasganj, Etah on 27.7.2005 at 10.10 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 27.7.2005 at 8.15 p.m.  The distance of the police station was about 5 kms from the alleged place of occurrence. The F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons who have caused the injuries on the person of the deceased Brahma Singh and injured Rameshwar Prasad by firearm. Due to injuries the conditions of Rameshwar Prasad and Brahma Singh was serious and they were taken to the hospital, thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged under Section 307 I.P.C., but the deceased Brahma Sing died in the hospital, thereafter, the case was converted under Sections 302/307 I.P.C. The post mortem examination report of Brahma Singh shows that he has received one gunshot wound of entry  on right side of abdomen, the blackening was present. A metallic bullet was recovered and injured Rameshwar Prasad has also received gunshot injury on abdomen. It was grievous in nature. During investigation the names of the applicant and other co-accused persons have been disclosed by injured Rameshwar Prasad and other witnesses also disclosed the name of the applicant as an accused.

 Heard Sri Yogendra Mishra learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the state of U.P.

         It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that: -

(i)The applicant is not named in the F.I.R., but his name has been disclosed by the injured himself under Sections 161 Cr. P. C. The naming of the applicant is after thought. In case the applicant has committed the alleged offence his name would have been mentioned in the F.I.R. On 2.8.2005 i.e. after 5 days of the alleged occurrence an application was moved by the first informant before Circle Officer, Kasganj alleging therein that on 1.8.2005 his brother Rameshwar Prasad became unconscious and told that the applicant and co-accused Anar Singh, Pappu,  Santosh and Kallu open the fire on him.

(ii)The statement of the injured Rameshwar Prasad was recorded on 10.8.2005 by the I.O., who also disclosed the name of the applicant.

(iii)The alleged occurrence had taken place in the dark hours of night and there was no source of light and there was no independent witness to support the prosecution story and no dying declaration was recorded.

(iv)The alleged occurrence has been committed by some unknown miscreants, but due to local partibandi the applicant has been falsely implicated and the applicant is having no criminal antecedents and he is not previous convict, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.

In reply of the above contention the learned A.G.A. submits that in the present case the F.I.R. has been lodged on 27.7.2005 at about 10.10 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 27.7.2005 at about 8.15 p.m.  The distance of the police station was about 5 kms from the alleged place of occurrence. The F.I.R. was lodged after admission of the deceased and injured in the hospital. The F.I.R. has promptly lodged. At that time neither the deceased nor the injured were in a position to narrate the correct story and the injured Rameshwar Prasad was also unconscious. The names of the applicant and other co-accused persons have been disclosed by the injured when he has become conscious. ThereaAdministrativefter, an application was moved by the first informant on 2.8.2005 narrating the whole story. The witnesses interrogated by the I.O. are independent witnesses. They have supported the prosecution story and it has been specifically alleged that the shot discharged by the applicant hit the deceased. He is main accused and there is no reason of his false implication. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence, therefore, he may not be released on bail.

      Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement of the injured Rameshwar Prasad, submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicaAdministrativent is not entitled for bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.

         Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

Dated: 18.9.2006

Rcv

                                                                   


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.