AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Case-dairy has been received and the informant is represented through Mr. M.L.Yadav, Advocate.
Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
The petitioners have been made accused in Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 93 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 700 of 2016, registered for offence under Sections 147/148/149/302 /379 IPC .
Throwing a doubt over the version of the informant as narrated in the First Information Report, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the manner of the alleged occurrence has been contradicted by the prosecution witness namely, Karmu Yadav though, the informant claims that on hearing hulla, Karmu Yadav came to the place of occurrence. It is contended that though there are 10 named accused persons who assaulted the son of the informant, the Doctor has noticed only four injuries on the dead body.
Statement of the Karmu Yadav has been read out by the learned counsel for the petitioners from where it is apparent that he is not an eye-witness. The informant claims that he is an eye-witness and he has specifically named these two persons as the ones who have assaulted his son. After the investigation the police has filed charge-sheet only against these two persons. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is an well accepted principle in law.
The learned APP has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.
In the above facts, I am not inclined to grant bail to these petitioners, at this stage and accordingly, this application is dismissed.