Raju vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—Heard Sri. Rajeev Kumar Saxena, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri. Ram Ashish Pandey and Sri. Devesh Vikram, learned Counsel for the complainant.

This application has been filed by the applicant Raju a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 109 of 2009 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302, I.P.C., P.S. Vidhuna district Auraiya.

The facts, in brief of this case are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Dinesh Chandra Gupta on 14/15.5.2009 at 12 O''clock in respect of the incident which had occurred on 14.5.2009. According to the F.I.R. five persons including the applicant and two other co-accused Mool Chand Kori and Sumit Narain Kori are named with the allegation that they have committed the alleged offence. It is alleged that at about 12 O''clock at night, on hue and cry of the children, the first informant and other persons came on the roof of the house, they saw the injured Sumit, was lying in a pool of blood, the applicant the co-accused Sumit Narain Kori were also seen by the first informant and another on the same roof. The co-accused Mool Chand Kori, Sumit Narain Kori were armed with country made pistol, the applicant was armed with lathi, two unknown person were armed with country made pistol. As soon as the first informant and her husband deceased Dinesh Chand Gupta proceeded towards their injured son, the applicant used lathi blow on his person consequently he fell down, thereafter, the co-accused Sumit Narain Kori also caused gunshot injury on the person of the deceased, after committing the alleged offence the applicant and other co-accused persons ran away from the alleged place of occurrence, the motive behind the commission of the alleged incident was that the co-accused Mool Chand had made allegation against the injured Sumit that he had molested Snehlata, the daughter of the accused Mool Chand, thereafter, there had been quarrel on the filling of the water.

That according to the post mortem examination report the deceased Dinesh Chandra Gupta shows that he had sustained three injuries in which injury No. 1 was gun shot wound of entry, injury Nos. 2 and 3 were abraded contusion on the left side and tip of the left shoulder.

According to the medical examination report the injured Sumit Gupta shows that he has sustained firearm wound of entry, the applicant applied for bail before the learned Magistrate, Auraiya who rejected the same on 11.8.2009.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is an innocent person he has not committed the alleged offence, the alleged occurrence has taken place in the dark hours of night, it has been committed by some unknown persons even according to the prosecution version three persons were unknown, then there was no occasion for the applicant, the applicant was not an unknown person who participated in the commission of the alleged offence. The F.I.R. is ante timed, it has been lodged after great thought and consultation. According to the prosecution version the applicant was armed with lathi, first of all he used lathi blow on the person of the deceased, consequently he fell down, thereafter, the co-accused Sumit caused gun-shot injury on his person. According to the post-mortem examination report the deceased has sustained gunshot wound of entry and two abraded contusions, the cause of death was as a result of firearm injury, the injury caused by lathi was not the cause of death. At the most an offence under 323, I.P.C. is constituted against the applicant. The applicant is innocent person he is having no criminal antecedent, therefore, he may be released on bail.

In reply to the above submission it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that in a pre-planned manner, the applicant and other co-accused persons came at the roof of the house of the deceased where they caused gunshot injury on the son of the deceased, thereafter, the deceased and his wife came on the roof, the deceased was assaulted by the use of lathi blow, consequently, he fell down, thereafter, he caused gunshot injury. According to the post-mortem examination report also the deceased sustained two abraded contusion, which was caused by lathi.

The gravity of the offence is too much and there is no reason for false implication of the applicant. The applicant is having motive also, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail.

Considering fact, circumstances of the case and submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant, and from the perusal of the record, it appears that the applicant is named in the F.I.R., F.I.R. has been promptly lodged within three hours, specific role of causing injury on the person of the deceased by the lathi blow has been shown to the applicant, the injuries on the person of the deceased was allegedly caused when he came on the roof where firing was done in which his son Sumit had sustained gunshot injury but according to the post-mortem examination report the deceased has sustained two abraded contusions on the forehead and left shoulder, the motive is also attributed in the F.I.R. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly, this application is rejected.