Pawan Singh vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, senior advocate assisted by Sri P. N. Misra, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Ravindra Nath Rai, learned Counsel for the complainant.

This is second bail application moved by the applicant Pawan Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 304 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 302, 504 and 506, I.P.C., P. S. Gaur, district Basti.

The Criminal Misc. First Bail Application No. 1233 of 2007 has been rejected by this Court on 19.2.2007 after considering the merits of the case. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that there is a cross version of the alleged incident, now the cross case has been registered, which was not registered at the time of the disposal of the first bail application.P. Ws. 1 and 2 have been examined in the Court. It has been clearly stated by the P.W. 1 that applicant has caused injury on the person of he injured Sohan, he had not caused any injury on the person of the deceased. The applicant was allegedly armed with bhala. It was not specifically alleged in the F.I.R. that who caused injury on the person of the deceased or injured and now it has been specified by the P.W. 1 that applicant has caused injury on the person of the injured Sohan. The injured Sohan has sustained seven injuries in which injury No. 1 is incised wound and injury No. 2 is penetrating wound. The injuries caused by the applicant were not grievous in nature and he did not caused any injury on the person of the deceased.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that trial of this case is in progress, P.W. 1 has been examined even according to the statement of P.W. 1 applicant has actively participated in the commission of the alleged offence. The injured Sohan had sustained injury caused by bhala. Injury No. 1 was incised wound on the right side of the head and injury No. 2 was penetrating wound on left side of the head. Both the injuries were kept under observation and advised for X-ray. There is no new ground for releasing the applicant on bail because in the present case two persons have lost their lives and three persons sustained injuries. The alleged incident has been occurred one day prior the day of the Diwali. The gravity of the offence is too much and the plea of the cross case has already been considered at the time of the disposal of the first bail application, therefore, applicant may not be released on bail.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned Counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record it appears that grounds taken in the second bail application touching the merits of the case have already been considered, the trial is in progress, active role of causing injury is assigned to the applicant, the gravity of the offence is too much and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is dismissed.