Karan Lodhi vs State of U.P.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA appearing for the State of U.P. and perused the lower court record.

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that according to the statement of witnesses co-accused Babloo discharged the shot causing injury to the deceased and the appellant-Drigpal Lodhi @ Dippa caused injury by using axe blows. According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased has sustained two anti mortem injuries, in which injury No. 1 was lacerated wound, which was caused by firearm and injury No. 2 was incised wound, which may be caused by sharp edged weapon like axe. No specific role has been assigned to the appellant-Man Singh. According to the prosecution version, he was armed with Farsa. The co-accused Babloo has been released on bail by another bench of this Court on 02.02.2010.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that it has been specifically alleged t hat co-accused Babloo discharged the shot causing injury to the deceased by country made pistol and the appellant-Drigpal Lodhi @ Dippa caused injury by using axe blows. The deceased has sustained two anti mortem injuries. The prosecution story is corroborated by postmortem examination report, but the co-accused Babloo has been released on bail under the wrong impression because in the certified copy of the judgment injury No. 2 is mentioned as lacerated wound (Ek Fata Hua Ghav), whereas in the post mortem examination report it is an incised wound. In such circumstances, the appellants may not be released on bail.

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the record it appears that the co-accused Babloo and the appellant-Drigpal Lodhi @ Dippa caused injury by using country made pistol and axe respectively. According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased has sustained two anti mortem injuries, in which injury No. 1 was lacerated wound, which was caused by fire arm and injury No. 2 was incised wound, which may be caused by sharp edged weapon like axe. The role of causing injury is not assigned to the appellant-Man Singh, therefore, the appellant-Man Singh is entitled for bail. The prayer for bail on behalf of appellant-Drigpal Lodhi @ Dippa is refused at this stage.

Let appellant No. 2 Man Singh convicted in S.T. No. 193 of 2007, Case Crime No. 1520 of 2007, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., P.S. Panwari, District Mahoba be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. The realization of fine to the extent of 3/4th shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant shall deposit the balance amount of fine, imposed by the trial court, within two months from the date of his release from the jail. In case, the appellant No. 2-Man Singh does not deposit the fine, imposed by the trial court, within the aforesaid period, he shall be taken into custody forthwith.