Allahabad High Court
Shivji Singh vs State Of U.P. on 7 May, 2018
Bench: Shashi Kant Gupta, Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5219 of 2016
Appellant :- Shivji Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- A Kumar Srivastava,Indra Deo Mishra,Shri Ram (Rawat),Upendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Ref: Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 311824 of 2016.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State on the bail prayer of the appellant who has been convicted in S.T. No. 197 of 2010, under Section 302 I.P.C. Police Station Jamania District Ghazipur and sentenced him to undergo for life imprisonment with fine.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the P.W.-2 Ramesh Singh and P.W.-3 Rajesh Kumar Singh are said to be the eye witnesses of the alleged incident. In fact, the presence of P.W.-2 Ramesh Singh and P.W.-3 Rajesh Kumar Singh is not proved. In the cross-examination of P.W.-2 Ramesh Singh, it has come that on the date of alleged incident Rajesh Kumar Singh (P.W.-3) had not come with the deceased in the village Pahladpur which shows that the P.W.-3 Rajesh Kumar Singh was not present at the time of alleged incident. The P.W.-3 Rajesh Kumar Singh is a maternal uncle ( Mama ) of the deceased, his testimony is not credible. It has further been submitted that the father of the deceased was an accused in the murder case of one Ramadhar. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there were two gates of the house in question; the first gate opening toward east side is the main gate in front whereof there is a khadanja pathway and another gate which opens towards north side is not used for entry and exit. This fact has also been supported by the P.W.-2 Ramesh Singh in his cross examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the dead body of the deceased was found lying on the another gate opening towards north side is not used for exit and entry which shows that the deceased died in some other manner and killed by some unknown persons. It has further been submitted that the F.I.R. is delayed and the same has been lodged ante-time after consultation. There is no mention of motive in the first information report. The applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 19.10.2009. There is no likelihood of early hearing of this appeal in near future.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the appellant is main accused who had fired upon the deceased with a licensee gun of his father namely, Raj Narain Singh. At the time of postmortem report one gun shot wound was found on the chest of the deceased. The P.W.-2 Ramesh Singh and the P.W-3 Rajesh Kumar Singh, who are the eye witnesses of the alleged incident, have supported the prosecution version in their statements. The appellant is named in the first information report. From the evidence available on record, it is established that the appellant had fired upon the deceased due to which he died, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail is declined and the bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 7.5.2018
Gss
