Narendra vs State of U.P.

A. B. Srivastava, J.—This is an applicant Narendra for bail in respect of an offence under Sections 147, 14'', 149, 307, 302, I. P. C., P. S. Achhnera, District Agra. Learned counsel for the applicant S. S. Tewari, for first informant, Shri Virendra Singh ; and learned A. G. A. appearing on behalf of the State, have been heard.

The prosecution story in nut shell is that near about 7 a. m. on 6111992 deceased Ravindra Singh, injured Ramesh and Virendra, all real brothers, were collecting milk in containers for taking the same to the city, and most of the members of the family, including their brother informant Mahavir, were present outside the house. Soni Ram and Chandan Singh armed with licensed gun ; Laltendu, Gajjo, Chandan Vijai and Narendra with countrymade pistols, came there, and tired towards these persons with intention to kill. All three brothers mentioned above and six other family members were seriously injured Ravindra Singh died on way to hospital.

After getting the injured examined and treated at the hospital, F.I.R. regarding the incident was lodged at 2.10 p. m. the same day.

The bail plea of the applicant has been pressed on the ground that the incident of the nature stated in the F. 1. R. does not appear probable, die fact of almost entire family being injured indicates that the incident occurred sometime of the night inside house. The factum of there being semidigested food in the stomach of the deceased is also pointed out to say that at 7 a. m. this could not have been the position as nobody would take food at 4 or 5 a. m. in the morning such position would have been there at about mid night, the meals having been taken around 9 or 10 p. m.

These submissions have been opposed by the other aside and it is contended that the nature of injuries to the deceased and other injured persons indicate a concerted intention to cause death. The incident resulted into fatal injuries to deceased Ravindra and a largs number of injuries, many of them serious to the other injured persons. Contention further is that in the very nature of the job a milk seller carrying milk from the village to the city, a person has to leave home early and return quite late, necessitating taking meals before leaving home and normally such meal is taken well in advance before carrying heave milk cans on cycle to long distances.

In the instant case, it would also be found that as per the prosecution version the deceased did not die on the spot rather he was carried to the hospital and died on way, time of reaching the hospital being 9.25 a. m. Accordingly, the deceased though injured, in view of the fact he remained alive for a certain length of time even after taking the me ils/breakfast, the existence of semidigested food in the stomach was natural, even if the food was taken sometime around 6 a. m. or so.

The fact of the injuries to the other injured persons being found fresh on medical examination between 9.45 and 11.55 a. m. at the hospital, also prima facie negative the plea of the incident being of midnight or in the proximity thereof,

Considering the nature of incident in which fire arms were freely used by the assaillant and injuries to a number of persons including females were caused, and the deceased, was fatally wounded the specific role assigned to the appellant and also in the background of the motive for the crime, it does not appear a fit case for grant of bail.

Relying on the factum of granting bail by the Sessions Judge to two of the accused persons Son! and Vijai Singh by his order dated 1631993 despite the rejection of the bail application of the applicant by his earlier order, it is urged that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the principles of parity, if not anything else. This plea has been opposed and it is submitted that a move has been made for cancellation of the said order of the Sessions Judge. No reference of the cancellation application has however been given.

The consideration of consistency of judicial orders and parity, though desirable, is not a compelling factor and cannot be made sole criteria of granting bail, totally ignoring the facts staring on the face of record. It is all the more so when the view relied on its support of parity is not of a Court of coordinate or superior jurisdiction. In the instant case the Sessions Judge has simply brushed aside his earlier or rejecting the bail plea of the applicant without giving any reasons. It thus is a case where parity on the strength of the order of the Sessions Judge in the prevailing position cannot be claimed by the applicant.

As to the plea of the applicant for bail on the ground of being old and infirm and a patient of heart and Asthma, the same besides being controverter, there is not an iota of medical or other material on record.

For all these above reasons/therefore, the applicant has not made out any case for granting bail. His prayer for bail deserves to be and hereby rejected. However, in case any cancellation application as aforesaid has been made and the same does not find favour with the High Court, the applicant will be at liberty to move afresh on the said ground.