Ram Parvesh Mishra vs State of U.P.

J.C. Mishra, J.—The prosecution case is that coaccused Chandresh Mishra, brother of the applicant was involved in murder of Chhotey Lal Yadava in which the deceased Vijay Bahadur was cited as witness. The motive behind the crime was refusal by the deceased to file affidavit disputing the correctness of the prosecution case.

The prosecution case is that the applicant Ram Parvesh Mishra and his brother Chandresh Mishra fired at Vijay Bahadur and thereby committed murder. The report of the incident was lodged at 7.15 p.m. on the same date at police station located 9 KMs. away. The incident had taken place at 6 p.m. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the first information report was antetimed and this fact is confirmed by the fact that no special report was sent till 5 a.m. on the following morning.

The learned A.G.A. contended that the necessity to send special report arose only after the death of the deceased and immediately after the receipt of information regarding death the authorities were informed by R.T. set.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that despite direction the said report was not produced by the investigating agency as in the special report sent earlier it was stated that some unknown persons fired at Vijay Bahadur. In my opinion, no such adverse inference can be drawn in absence of any positive evidence.

The learned counsel for the applicant then contended that the prosecution is falsified by the presence of three injuries which could not be explained by the prosecution. The learned A.G.A. contended that the two abrasions could be caused by fall while the lacerated wound which was only 1 cm. long could be caused in similar manner and these insignificant injuries do not falsify the prosecution case.

The learned counsel then contended that one of the firearm injuries was accompanied with blackening while in the other there was absence of blackening. He contended that only one injury was serious and proved fatal. He contended that in absence of evidence as to how had caused fatal injury the applicant is entitled to bail.

The learned A.G.A. contended that the manner of firing indicates that both the assailants had intention to commit murder so that the deceased may not support the prosecution case.

On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances I do not find the applicant to bail.

The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is promising students and he has to appear in examination of M.A. The applicant may move the Sessions Judge on his being satisfied necessary arrangements may be made to enable the applicant to appear in the examination. It is made clear that despite rejection of this bail application it shall be open to the Sessions Judge to grant interim bail on his furnishing a personal bond and sureties to his satisfaction only for a limited period during which he has to appear in the examination. The scheme of the examination maybe produced before Sessions Judge.

Let a copy of this order be given to the applicant on proper application if possible today otherwise by tomorrow.