Allahabad High Court
Virendra & Others vs State Of U.P. on 28 August, 2014
Bench: Amar Saran, Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2950 of 2011
Appellant :- Virendra & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ajit Kumar Singh Solanki,Apul Misra,J.S. Sengar,K.N.Raha
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Purushottam Pandey,Rama Shankar Mishra
Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Heard Sri Apul Misra and Sri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants-appellants, as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri Rama Shanker Mishra , learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record of the case.
The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the obvious cause of the death appears to be injury nos. 2 and 1 received by the deceased and not the other injury no.3 which was caused on the leg and was muscle deep only. As it cannot be ascertained as to who is the author of injury nos.2 & 1, therefore, at least for the purpose of bail, benefit of doubt should be given to all the appellants. Further submission is that the appellant-Virendra is said to have been armed with a country made pistol and, therefore, he could not have succeeded to cause any injury to the deceased who was admittedly at the top of his roof at the time of incident while the appellant was on the ground quite away from the house of deceased. It has been sought to be argued that in the aforesaid situation the injuries received by the deceased may be attributed to only those accused, who wielded the gun and not to appellant- Virendra, who wielded and used a country made pistol from sufficient distance. The submission is that as all the accused fired from the ground on the deceased who was standing on the roof, and that too from sufficient distance, only a high velocity weapon could have hit him and not the shots fired from a katta which is a low velocity weapon. Attention of the court has also been drawn to the admission of P.W.1 Shiv Dhar that only two shots had hit the deceased The argument is that in this view of the matter, in all probability, injury nos.1 and 2 seem to be the result of a single gun fire because of the wide dispersal of pellets and have not been the result of two shots. Injury No.3 seems to have been independently caused by other gun shot. It has also been contended that injuries received by the injured witnesses are not in consonance with the prosecution version as they have been caused by the blunt weapons and not by firearm as claimed. It has also been stressed that the motive to commit such a crime was also weak. Further submission is that co-accused Satya Prakash who wielded lathi has already been granted bail.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate and and complainant's counsel Sri Rama Shanker Mishra have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the motive behind the crime is the purchase of some land (grove) by the deceased of which the accused were the share holders, and infuriated by the said purchase the appellants were resisting the passage from the same land which was being claimed by the deceased and complainant side. It has also been argued that even if it cannot be definitely said as to who is the author of which injury but the circumstances of the case suggested that all the three accused shared the common intention to kill the deceased and must be held liable vicariously for the murder of the deceased. It has also been argued that admittedly the deceased was on the roof of his own house and was very obviously the victim of aggression made by the appellants. The promptitude of F.I.R,. which was lodged almost within two hours of the incident was also stressed upon by learned A.G.A.
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are of the view that the appellant- Virendra may be allowed bail.
Let the appellant Virendra convicted and sentenced in S.T. No.145 of 1996 (State Vs. Virendra and others), Case crime no.310 of 1995, u/s 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. P.S. Puwayan, district Shahjahanpur be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.
So far as prayer for bail of appellants-Raghunath and Hari Om is concerned, we are not inclined to grant bail to them. Therefore, the bail payer for appellants- Raghunath and Hari Om is refused.
Order Date :- 28.8.2014
Rkb
