CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Devraj vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 17 March 2008 · Citation: (2008) 03 AHC CK 0119

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302, 364
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4797 of 2008
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 364 words

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Devraj with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 396 of 2007 under sections 364 and 302 IPC, P.S. Ujhani, District Badaun.

2.

Heard Sri A.B.L. Gaur, senior Advocate assisted by Sri V.P. Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

3.

From the perusal of the record it appears that in this case the FIR has been lodged by Ajay Kumar Singh on 8.5.2007 at 10.00 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 8.5.2007 at about 5.00 p.m. It is alleged that on 8.5.2007 at about 5.00 p.m. when the first informant, the brother of the deceased Vipin, the grand father Raja Ram and his maternal uncle Shyam Singh were cleaning the sugar canes, the applicant and coaccused Shailendra, Ayendra @ Annu, Umesh Singh armed with country made pistols came at the field where the deceased and other persons were working and the deceased Vipin was forcibly taken away by them in the field of one Chitan Singh whereas the coaccused Shailendra discharged the shots causing the injury on the person of the deceased thereafter the applicant caused gun shot injury on the head of the deceased consequently the deceased died instantaneously. Prior the alleged incident one Paras son of coaccused Umesh was murdered since then Umesh and his friends were having the enmity with the deceased because they were having the suspicion that son of the coaccused Umesh was called out at the instance of the deceased.

4.

According to the postmortem examination report the deceased has sustained two fire arm wound of entries in which injury No. 1 was fire arm wound of entry on right side of fore head and injury No. 2 was fire arm wound of entry on the back of the chest, the FIR has been promptly lodged. The alleged incident has been occurred in the presence of the witnesses and specific role of causing the injury is assigned to the applicant, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.

5.

Accordingly, this application is rejected.