Shishupal Singh @ Bittu Thakur (In Jail) vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Shishu Pal Singh alias Bittu with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 525 of 2005 under Sections 147 148 149 323 452 504 506 307 302 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, P.S. Kotwali, district Lalitpur.

The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Har Narain Ahirwar on 26.3.2005 at 7.20 P.M. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 26.3.2005 at about 4.30 P.M. The applicant and other co-accused are named in F.I.R. It is alleged that the applicant and other co-accused persons armed with country made pistols and some of the co-accused were armed with Lathies came at the house of the first informant and hurled abuses relating to the caste and asked that a lesson of deposing the evidence will be taught them. Thereafter Bal Mukund was dragged by them, he was badly beaten on the road, injuries were caused by country made pistol on his person. The injured Anandi Lal, Mukesh Kumar, Roop Singh and the first informant came in his rescue they were also beaten by the Lathies. It is contended that the first informant, deceased and injured persons are poor labourers belonging to the scheduled caste and the applicant and other co-accused are Thakur by caste. They are powerful and having a criminal background. Bal Mukund has been murdered only because he had deposed the evidence against the co-accused Har Pal and Dharmendra Singh alias Halke in which they were convicted by the Court. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had received 14 ante mortem injuries caused by fire arm and hard blunt object. The injured Mukesh Kumar and Har Prasad were having a complaint of pain and injured Anandi Lal having a complaint of pain and one contused swelling. Roop Singh had received one contused swelling and complaint of pain.

Heard Sri G.C. Saxena, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that there is general role of firing is assigned to the applicant and other co-accused. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence, he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to old enmity. The deceased Bal Mukund was a criminal having multiple cornered enmity, the applicant was having no motive. The F.I.R. is delayed, it is ante timed also. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution story and the applicant is having no criminal antecedent, therefore, he may be released on bail.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that it is a broad day light incident, the applicant was having strong motive to commit the alleged offence because the deceased had deposed the evidence in the court against the co-accused Har Pal and Dharmendra Singh alias Halke in which they were convicted. The deceased, the injured and the first informant belong to scheduled caste, a weaker section of the society whereas applicant and other co-accused persons belong to the Thakur caste, who were very powerful and to teach a lesson to the poor persons. The alleged offence has been committed by them. The deceased had received injury caused by country made pistol and lathies. Injured witnesses are there, the witnesses are natural evidence. Prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence, gravity of the offence is too much and at the pointing out of the applicant one country made pistol used in the commission of the alleged offence has been recovered. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence.

Considering the facts, circumstance of the case, submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., considering the fact that the gravity of offence is too much, the active role of causing injury is assigned to the applicant 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.