Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 14 May, 2015
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- BAIL No. - 7065 of 2013
Applicant :- Mahendra Singh Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- D.K. Singh Somvanshi,Nagendra Mohan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,M.C. Verma,Sarvesh Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sarvesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Afaq Zaki Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that general role of assaulting the deceased by fire arm has been assigned to the applicant along with other co-accused persons. He further submits that though as per the prosecution case, the informant is an eye witness of the occurrence but he is not an eye witness and his presence at the place of occurrence appears to be doubtful. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case because of ill will of Pradhani election. He submitted that the applicant fired with country made rifle on the deceased which hit him on his right finger where as the injured witness Guddu @ Mahendra Pal has stated that the fired shot by the applicant hit the motorcycle of the deceased and he had fallen from it and thereafter the deceased was shot by him at the place where he had fallen. He submits that till date only charges have been framed against the applicant and other co-accused persons. The applicant is in jail since 9.10.2012.
Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. and submitted that as per the prosecution case, the applicant was armed with country made rifle along with co-accused Vijay Pal, who is also armed with country made rifle and the deceased said to have received three gunshot wound of entry which is of country made rifle and injury no. 3 is communicating wound of injury no. 2 and injury no. 4 is communicating wound of injury no. 2 and 3 and the injury no. 5 is also an injury of country made rifle which the co-accused Vijay Pal has caused.He further submits that as per the statement of the injured witness the applicant is said to have caused injury to the deceased when he fallen down which appears to have been caused from a close range, hence blackening and tattooing were found as injury nos. 1 and 2.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, I find no good ground for grant of bail to the applicant Mahendra Singh Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 818 of 2012 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 120-B I.P.C. and 3 (2) V S.C./S.T. Act, police station Maigalganj, District Lakhimpur Kheri.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within the period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before the trial court, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 14.5.2015
shiraz
