Sunil Kumar Pandey @ Sonu vs State Of U.P.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1753 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 47
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15965 of 2010
 

 
Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Pandey @ Sonu
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Narsingh
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.

Heard counsel for the applicant and  learned  AGA for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that there was no motive of assault to the deceased. The applicant was not armed with any weapon. As per allegation, the applicant assaulted with wooden -rod  to the injured. In fact, there was a dispute regarding the land in which the applicant also  received injuries. If the prosecution case is admitted,  no offence  under section 304 IPC is made out,  because there was no intention to kill. The applicant is in jail since 24.2.2010, hence, he is entitled for bail.

Learned  AGA opposed the aforesaid prayer on the ground that there is specific allegation in the First Information Report that the applicant assaulted with wooden rod. The witness Chandrabhan Mishra and the informant Rajaram Pandey supported the prosecution version. Rajaram Pandey is informant and also injured witness. There is head injury and a fracture  of the parietal bone of the deceased, hence the applicant is not entitled for bail.  The incident is dated 23.2.2010, the informant and the deceased were examined on the same day. However, the applicant got himself medically examined on 24.2.2011, his  injuries are simple in nature.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the  case, it is not a fit case for bail.

The application filed in case crime no. 200 of 2010, under section 302/307 IPC, P.S. Itwa, District Sidharthnagar  is hereby rejected.

Order Date :- 17.5.2011

Gss