Kishno vs State Of U.P.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1446 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 47
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10334 of 2012
 
Petitioner :- Kishno
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Rajul Bhargava,Anoop Kumar Singh
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,B.P.Verma,L.K. Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was falsely implicated in the present case. There was family dispute regarding the partition of the land and share in the sale consideration for which the land in question was sold.  There was an agreement regarding the land by the deceased. As far as the applicant is concerned, neither there was any motive for him nor he would be beneficiary in the sale consideration nor in the land.  According to the statement of eye-witnesses, Phool Singh and Santosh, nephew of the informant were having countrymade pistol, however it was not clarified what kind of weapon, the applicant and co-accused  were having.  The specific allegation of firing was not assigned. There is three gun-shot entry wound injuries and three exit wound injuries.  Apart from that there are multiple incised wound that has not been explained in the statement of informant or the other eye-witnesses.  Subsequently, the affidavit filed in the month of Febraury, 2010, even in that there is no explanation regarding the incised wound.  These circumstances clearly shows that no one has seen the incident.  It appears that merely on the basis of suspicion, the applicant was implicated because he was friend of co-accused Ramesh.  Apart from that the case of the applicant is not identical to co-accused Phool Chand and Santosh. The applicant has no previous criminal history.  He is in jail since 11.01.2012 hence he is entitled for bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial.

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there are eye-witnesses of the incident and they have stated that co-accused and the applicant fired causing injuries to the deceased Gangadhar.  There are three fire armed injuries of entry wound.  Hence, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merit, it is a fit case for bail.  Let the applicant Kishno be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in Case Crime No. 244 of 2011, under section 302 I.P.C, P.S. Jamunapar, District-Mathura with the following conditions:

1) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate the prosecution witness.

3) The applicant will appear before the court concerned on the date fixed unless personal appearance is exempted.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and to take the applicant into custody.

Order Date :- 8.5.2012 \ N Tiwari