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
7 paragraphs · 273 wordsA. Mateen, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate. Gone through the FIR, bail rejection order as well as counter and rejoinder affidavit exchCriminal Misc. Case No. 2510 (B) of 2009 Sanjai Singh v. State of U.P.
Hon''ble A. Mateen, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate. Gone through the FIR, bail rejection order as well as counter and rejoinder affidavit exchanged between the parties.
It is a case where as per allegation the applicant is said to have used lathi and caused injury on Satyendra Singh, but no lathi injury has been caused except firearm injury, which is said to have been fired by Birendra Singh and, as such, submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that lathi injury was not caused by anyone. It has been further argued that although in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Satyendra Singh specific role of inflicting lathi injury has been assigned to the applicant, but there is no lathi injury. It has been further argued that coaccused, who has been assigned role of instigation, namely, Shailendra Singh, has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 904 (B) of 2009.
Taking into consideration overall aspects of the matter, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let applicantSanjai Singh, accused of Case Crime No. 171 of 2008, under Section 307 IPC, police station Udaipur, District Pratapgarh be also released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned.