Rajendra Singh and Another vs State of U.P.

Vinod Prasad, J.—Two siblings Rajendra Singh and Virendra Singh have applied for their bail in Crime No. 65 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302, I.P.C., P.S. Chandpur, district Fatehpur.

The prosecution allegation against the applicants as is clear from the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) are that the accused Rajendra Singh and Virendra Singh (two applicants), Pramod Singh, Shive Narayan Singh, Chhotey Singh and Lal Pratap Singh who are the resident of the village of the informant Suresh Singh were ploughing the disputed field from their Escort Tractor on 5.9.2005, regarding which a case is pending in the Court. When Shamsher Singh and Jagat Bahadur Singh received the information of the tilling of the disputed land, they alongwith informant went to the aforesaid field and found that Lal Pratap Singh accused was tilling the field from the tractor and rest of the accused persons were standing there. Shamsher Singh and Jagat Bahadur Singh asked the accused persons to desist from tilling the land till the disposal of the case, on which Lal Pratap Singh and two aforesaid applicants after stopping the tractor pulled out their country made pistols and started firing. Rest of the accused persons armed with spade and axe also started assaulting Shamsher Singh and Jagat Bahadur Singh, as a result of which both of them sustained injuries and fell down. The informant raised alarm on which Chhidu Singh and Ashish Singh came on the spot. After injuring the two persons the accused made their escape good alongwith their tractor. The two injured persons were transported to Amauli district hospital in a Jeep. Jagat Bahadur Singh however, lost his life before reaching hospital and Shamsher Singh was admitted who also subsequently, lost his life. Autopsy report of two deceased persons indicates that both of them had sustained firearm wounds as well as incised wounds. On the aforesaid factual matrix the applicants have applied for their bail after its rejection by the Sessions Judge, Fatehpur vide his order dated 8.2.2006 (Annexure-17).

I have heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Pulak Ganguly learned Counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.

Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned senior advocate contended that in this case the applicants had a right of private defence of property and therefore at the worst they have exceeded their said right. He further contended that their offence will not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. He further contended that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case because of the property dispute and in support of his contention he through a supplementary affidavit, has filed a pedigree. On the basis of paras 8 to 17 of this bail application learned Counsel for the applicants hankered the submissions that the property litigation was going on since long and at some stages they had won the legal battle as well and that is why they have been implicated in the present crime.

Learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the informant on the other hand contended that in this case the applicants are named as main shooters. The incident has taken place in daylight and there is an injured witness. They further contended that there was no reason for the applicants to commit the murder of the deceased persons as they have not done any thing against their persons nor they were trying forcibly to stop the accused from ploughing the field. They further contended that there is a dying declaration of Shamsher Singh in the form of his statement u/s 161, Cr. P.C. recorded by the Investigating Officer in which the applicants are named as assailants. They contended that the applicants do not deserve for bail.

I have considered the rival contentions raised by both sides and have gone through the material placed on the record of this case. In my opinion it is not a fit case for bail, as there is prima facie evidence of eye-witness account and dying declaration against the applicants as assailants. The applicants do not deserve to be released on bail.

The bail application is rejected.