Raj Pal And Anr. vs State Of U.P.
2015 Latest Caselaw 2859 ALL

Citation : 2015 Latest Caselaw 2859 ALL
Judgement Date : 1 October, 2015

Allahabad High Court

Raj Pal And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 1 October, 2015

Bench: Manoj Misra




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13852 of 2015
 

 
Applicant :- Raj Pal And Anr.
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Shiv Prakash Tiwari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

Counter affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants in case crime No.373 of 2014, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Mandi Dhanaura, District Amroha/J.P. Nagar with the prayer to enlarge them on bail.

According to the prosecution case the informant was shot at by the applicant and co-accused Piyush Kumar. The medical examination of Jai Singh (the informant) discloses gun shot injuries on the upper half of the body with charring present and the supplementary report discloses presence of radio oqaque shadows of mettalic density.

The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the injuries are fabricated and even otherwise the injuries are not grievous in nature because there is no supplementary report to disclose that any vital organ was damaged or any bony injury was caused.

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that not only the injured has supported the prosecution case but there are independent witnesses also who have seen the injured lying with the injuries and they have heard the gun shots. It has been submitted that since the injuries are on the vital part of the body and more than one gun shot wound has been found on the person of the injured, the applicants are not entitled for bail.

I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not consider it appropriate to grant bail to the applicants. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

However, it is observed that the trial court would endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 1.10.2015

AKShukla/-