Brahmpal vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—Heard Sri F. N. Dubey, advocate appearing for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

An F.I.R. was lodged on 6.4.2007 by the complainant Surendra Singh s/o Harvir Singh at P. S. Kithore, District Meerut, where a case under Sections 307 and 452, I.P.C. was registered as Case Crime No. 201 of 2007 against Brahmpal (applicant herein), Sukhpal and one unknown person.

The allegations in the F.I.R. are that some dispute was going on between Smt. Jaiviri wife of the complainant and wife of Sukhpal. The accused Brahmapl, Sukhpal and one unknown person who was covering his face by dhata having country made pistols entered into the house of complainant and accused Brahmpal fired on the son of the complainant thereby causing injuries to him. Rest two persons also are said to have fired on the wife of the complainant, but she escaped narrowly.

The main submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant is that when dispute between the ladies was going on regarding a nali, the complainant having country made pistol was coming from the house, but accidentally fire was made from tamancha, which hit his son and subsequently false F.I.R. was lodged by him against the accused persons.

Next submission made by learned Counsel is that after investigation final report has been submitted against Sukhpal and unknown person.

It is also submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured are not dangerous to life and hence the applicant Brahmpal, who is in jail since 16.7.2007, should be admitted to bail as due to delay in trial his fundamental right of speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is being infringed.

The bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. contending that injury sustained by the injured was found grievous in nature as per supplementary report filed by the applicant himself with the bail application.

I have carefully gone through the entire material on record. There is prima facie evidence to show the complicity of the applicant in the incident. The applicant is the main accused, who is said to have fired on the injured by country made pistol thereby causing grievous injury to him. Entry and exit wounds of firearm were found on the person of injured at the time of medical examination. Therefore, having regard to all these facts, but without expressing any opinion on merit, the applicant in this heinous crime does not deserve bail.

In my considered opinion, on the basis of long incarceration in jail also, the applicant cannot be admitted to bail in this heinous crime. In this context, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and Ors. LXIII 2008 ACC 115: 2008 (3) ACR 3216 (SC), in which the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per se illegal. If the accused has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under-trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the bail application of the applicant Brahmpal is hereby rejected.

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant within a period of four months, if possible, applying the provisions of Section 309, Cr. P.C. and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the trial court concerned for necessary action.