Vikas Yadav and Others vs State of U.P.

Mukteshwar Prasad and Vinod Prasad, JJ.—ellants Vikas Yadav, Naresh Chandra Bhan, Papu alias Dinesh and Gajraj Singh were tried for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307, I.P.C. P.S. Akrabad, district Aligarh, by Additional Session''s Judge, Court No. 9, Aligarh in S.T. No. 107 of 2003 and are convicted by the trial court for the said offences and are sentenced to imprisonment for life u/s 302/149 with fine of Rs. ten thousand each, one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. two thousand each for offences u/s 148, I.P.C. Pappu alias Dinesh was also convicted for offence u/s 25, Arms Act and was sentenced to one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.

In short the prosecution case against the Appellants are that on 18.7.2003 at about 7.15 p.m., the informant Vimal Kumar alongwith Sopali on one motor cycle and his brother Rajesh and Ramji Lal on another motor cycle were returning to their village Akrabad from Aligarh. When all of them reached near Chamad at Rohana Singhpur Road a Maruti Car overtook them. The Appellants armed with Rifle, Revolver and Country made pistols started firing at the informant and his associates as a result of which Rajesh and Ramji Lal sustained firearm injuries and were seriously injured. Ram Ji Lal died on the spot. Another injured Rajesh died in the hospital on 19.7.2003 at 1.15 a.m. The autopsy reports of both the deceased dated 19.7.2003, indicated that they had sustained firearm injuries vide Annexures-Ka-32 and Ka-33.

On these facts the Appellants have prayed for being released on bail after their above appeal, challenging the aforesaid convictions and sentences, u/s 374(2), Cr. P.C., has been admitted by this Court on 20.9.2005.

We have heard Sri Tapan Ghosh, learned Counsel for the Appellant Vikas Yadav and Sri A. B. L. Gaur learned senior counsel for the rest of the Appellants assisted by Sri Dharmendra Singhal advocate in support of the bail plea and Sri G. S. Hazela assisted by Sri Pankaj Shukla advocate in opposition as well as learned A.G.A. Sri Ashok Diwedi.

It is contended by all the learned Counsels for all the Appellants that in this case the conduct of the first informant indicates that he was not present on the spot and the incident had taken place in a lonely place when no body was around and later on the Appellants were falsely implicated in the case. They contended that there is no specification of any weapon in the F.I.R. which was wielded by the specific accused. There is no motive mentioned in the F.I.R., and even the identity of the accused is doubtful. They further contended that the injuries do not corroborate the ocular testimony and the inquest conducted do not support the prosecution version. They further contended that had the informant been present on the spot he would not have left the injured Rajesh on the spot and would have taken him to the hospital. They further contended that injured Rajesh was taken to the hospital where his father had informed the doctor that some unknown persons had attacked him. They argued that if the informant would have been present on the spot, such a statement would not have been given by the father as it was the informant who had told the incident to the father. Sri Ghosh also contended that since no revolver injury was found on the body of the two deceased persons hence the participation of Appellant Vikas Yadav in the incident is false. They further contended that all the Appellants were on bail during the trial and they have not misused their bail and hence they should be granted bail during the pendency of appeal in this Court as the appeal is not likely to be taken up in near future.

Learned A.G.A. as well as Sri G. S. Hazela contrarily submitted that the Appellants are the main shooters of an incident in which two persons lost their lives and there is an eye-witness account which has fully corroborated the prosecution version. They further contended that there was motive for the Appellants to commit the murder as the two deceased were witness against the Appellants in an earlier incident u/s 307, I.P.C. They further contended that the time date, place of incident, and weapon of assault have not been challenged in the case by the accused and they are proved. They further contended that the conduct of every individual varies from person to person and there is no universal formulae for the same. They further contended that the two deceased were on the same motorcycle and hence they were shot dead and the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged promptly and the medical report supports the ocular version. They further contended that the incident took place all of a sudden and there was no reason for false implication of the accused Appellants.

We have considered the submission of rival sides. In our opinion, there is no ground to grant bail to the Appellants at this stage and hence the bail prayer of the Appellants are rejected at this stage.