High Courts

Saddam @ Vipin vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 17 March 2008 · Citation: (2008) 03 AHC CK 0124

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act — Section 7 · Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 · Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(2), 5
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5337 of 2008
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 318 words

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Saddam @ Vipin with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 207 of 2007 under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302 and 307 IPC, section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and section 3(2), 5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Bhaura Kalan, District Muzaffar Nagar.

2.

Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, Sri Vikas Sharma learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Amit Daga, learned Counsel for the complainant.

3.

From the perusal of the record it appears that FIR of this case has been lodged by Jitendra on 3.8.2007 at 10.30 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 3.8.2007 at about 09.30 a.m. In FIR coaccused Pratap, Anuj, Ravindra, Nitu and Mintu are named as accused and some miscreants were unknown.

4.

It is alleged that on 3.8.2007 at about 9.30 a.m. the accused persons who were armed with country made pistols and pistols came at the house of the first informant and discharged the shots indiscriminately, consequently, Dharmendra, Smt. Sukhviri and Ramesh lost their lives. Due to this incident the panic was created in the village. According to the postmortem examination report the deceased Dharmendra has sustained six antemortem injuries, the deceased Sukhviri had sustained five antemortem injuries and the deceased Ramesh had sustained four antemortem injuries. The name of the applicant has been disclosed by witness Sanjay in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. the active role of firing has been assigned to the applicant. In the said incident one Jitendra had also sustained injuries who was medically examined on 4.8.2007, he had sustained seven injuries. The statement of witness Sanjay was promptly lodged. The gravity of the offence is too much, no case for bail is made out, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly, this application is rejected.