Allahabad High Court
Hanumant Singh vs State Of U.P. on 23 September, 2011
Bench: Ravindra Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19919 of 2011
Hanumant Singh ...... Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. . ... Opp.Party
*****
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.
Heard Sri A.Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.and Sri Ratan Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Hanumant Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 108 of 2011 under sections 302, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Sakit, District Etah.
The facts, in brief, of this case are that the FIR has been lodged by Vijendra Singh on 4.6.2011 at 7.30 P.M.in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 4.6.2011 at about 5.30 P.M., the applicant and co-accused Santosh Kumar and Chandra Kesh are named as accused. It is alleged that on 4.6.2011, some dispute arose between the deceased and the accused persons over a water channel. The accused persons did the marpeet with the deceased and the witnesses Prem Lata and Ranveer Singh, the daughter and another son of the deceased came in rescue but the co-accused Santosh Kumar discharged a shot by country made pistol hitting the deceased, the deceased died instantaneously, in the said incident, Km.Prem Lata, the daughter of the first information and Ranveer Singh, the son of the first informant also sustained injuries.
According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased had sustained one fire arm wound of entry on the left side of the chest, the deceased died due to ante mortem injury. According to the medical examination report of injured Ranveer Singh, aged about 16 years, he had sustained 5 injuries, in which injury no.1 was on left side of scalp, injury no.2 was abrasion on left side of head, injury no.3 was contusion , injury no. 4 was abrasion and injury no.5 was contusion on the right side of left ear, all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. The injured Km. Prem Lata, daughter of Vijendra Singh, aged about 18 years, had sustained 3 injuries, in which injury no. 1 was lacerated wound, injury no. 2 was contusion and injury no.3 was complaint of pain on the back of the abdomen.
In respect of the said incident, a cross FIR has also been registered, it was lodged by Km. Prabha against Vijendra, Ranveer and Prem Lata daughter of Vijendra, it has been registered on 29.6.2011 at 4.00 P.M. in case crime No. 108-A of 2011 under sections 307, 323, 504 I.P.C., it is alleged that from the side of the applicant Hanumant Singh was medically examined on 6.6.2011, he had sustained lacerated wound on the head and abraded contusion on the back of the index finger and Km. Prabha was medically examined on 7.6.2011, she had sustained 5 injuries, in which injury no.1 was contusion on the right side of scalp, injury no. 2 was contusion on right spine, injury no. 3 was contusion on index finger, injury no. 4 was contusion on the right middle finger, injury no.5 was on left buttock, all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and simple in nature. Km. Sailesh was medically on 7.6.2011, she had also sustained 4 injuries caused by hard and blunt object, which were simple in nature.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that there was a cross version of the alleged incident, from both the sides, the FIRs have been registered and both the sides have sustained injuries. From the side of the prosecution, one person had lost life and two persons have sustained injuries and from the applicant's side 3 persons have sustained injuries, the same has not been explained, even according to the prosecution version, the applicant did not cause the injury to the deceased, it has been caused by co-accused Santosh Kumar, at the most, it can be said that the applicant and two other co-accused did the marpeet with the injured also, but the both the injured have sustained simple injuries, the applicant is in jail since 5.6.2011,he may be released on bail.
In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned counsel for the A.G.A.and counsel for the complainant that it is a case in which the applicant and two other co-accused persons have taken active part in causing the injuries, it has been specifically alleged that the shot discharged by co-accused Santosh hit the deceased, prior to that, all the accused persons did the marpeet with the deceased and the injured persons, in that marpeet both injured and the deceased have sustained injuries and a cross case has been registered at belated stage,the applicant has been tried in a case of murder in which he has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, against the order of conviction, he has filed appeal before the High Court, in which he has been released on bail but during the pendency of the appeal, he has committed the alleged offence, he has misused the liberty of bail granted by this High Court, therefore, he may not be released on bail.
Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record, it appears that in the present case, though the role of causing gunshot injury to the deceased has not been attributed to the applicant, it has been attributed to other co-accused Santosh Kumar, but prior to causing the injuries to the deceased, the applicant and other co-accused persons did the marpeet, in which two persons, namely, Ranveer Singh and Km.Prem Lata had sustained injuries, who were medically examined on the same day of the incident, a cross case has also been registered at the belated stage, in pursuance of the order passed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. From the side of the applicant 3 persons were medically examined, they were not medically examined on the day of incident or immediately thereafter, they were medically examined on 6.6.2011 and 7.6.2011. The applicant has already been convicted by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Etah on 19.8.1991 in S.T.No. 465 of 1989 under section 302/34 I.P.C., against the order of conviction dated 19.8.1991, the applicant and other co-accused persons filed appeal before the High Court, in which the applicant was released on bail but during pendency of the bail granted by the High Court in Criminal Appeal, the applicant has allegedly committed offence, he abused the bail granted by the High Court,therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
Dated : September 23 , 2011.
Su
