Allahabad High Court
Subhash vs State Of U.P. on 9 August, 2016
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25556 of 2016
Applicant :- Subhash
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Veer Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Applicant - Subhash seeks bail in Case Crime No. 270 of 2015, under Sections 307, 504, 302 IPC, Police Station Kankar Khera, District Meerut.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that an F.I.R. was lodged on 7.4.2015 at about 10.50 P.M. stating therein that the alleged incident occurred on the same day at 9.00 P.M. that the complainant alongwith Drigpal (deceased) went to the house of Subhash the present applicant, for demanding money which was given for employment where some heated argument exchanged between the deceased and the applicant. The applicant shot fire with the pistol which hit on the neck of Drigpal and thereafter the applicant escaped from the spot. The aforesaid incident was witnessed by the complainant and other witnesses of the village. The complainant got admitted the injured Drigpal Singh in the hospital, who was medically examined on the same day at 9.30 P.M. whose condition was serious. Later on while undergoing treatement he succumbed to the injuries.
It is further contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated as during trial the statement of the prosecution witnesses nos. 2 and 3 Vinay Chaudhary and Rajendra respectively have been recorded and both have not supported the prosecution version as such they have been declared hostile. The applicant is absolutely innocent who is languishing in jail since 6.12.2015 and has no criminal history to his credit, hence he deserves to be released on bail. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has contended that trial is proceeding and even if the two prosecution witnesses have been examined and declared hostile the entire prosecution case cannot be disbelieved when other witnesses are yet to be examined. The applicant, who has been attributed specific role of causing injuries with fire arm weapon fully supports with the postmortem report of the deceased, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence.
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. since the trial of the applicant is proceeding, hence this Court looking into the gravity of offence is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Therefore, the bail application is rejected.
However, the learned trial court is directed to proceed with the case and conclude the trial on its own merit expeditiously in accordance with law, if possible, within four months from the date of production/receipt of a certified copy of this order provided no adjournment is sought on behalf of the applicant.
Order Date :- 9.8.2016
RU
