Allahabad High Court
Vinay Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 8 May, 2018
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5472 of 2017
Appellant :- Vinay Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Samir Srivastava,A.C.Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Ref: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 314047 of 2017.
This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Session Trial No. 22 of 2014 (Case Crime No. 968 of 2013), State of U.P. vs. Vinay Sharma, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Sahibabad, District- Ghaziabad and in Session Trial No. 23 of 2014, (Case Crime No. 1235 of 2013), State of U.P. vs. Vinay Sharma, under Sections 25/27 Arms Act, P.S.- Sahibabad, District- Ghaziabad.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.
Perused the record.
Submission of counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo maximum period of seven years and he has already undergone more than half of sentence awarded to him and therefore, he should be released on bail on the ground of long period of detention. Further submission is that actually the injured was himself guilty of making inroads inside the house of the appellant and he also tried to molest the appellant's wife and hence the appellant had resorted to the act which he actually did and it was done in self defence which he had a right to adopt.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that this is a case in which there is overwhelming evidence on record to support the charge levelled against the appellant. The evidence produced in the court is to the effect that the appellant had repeatedly fired upon the victim by his revolver which caused serious injuries on the most vital part of the body. One firearm hit on the chest of the victim. The victim received five injuries, which according to the medical opinion, were caused by firearm. The X-ray report confirmed the presence of metallic shadows on the chest as well as other parts of the body. The victim had to be operated upon by the doctors. The statements of P.W.-7 and P.W.-8, who are the doctors, not only corroborated the victim's statement but are sufficient to elaborate upon the gravity of the injuries received by him. The intestines were damaged which had to be surgically cut and re-managed and an additional passage was to be created by the surgeons in order to take out the fecal matter. The blood arteries were lacerated at various places as a result of injuries caused to the victim. It is so apparent on the face of record that the survival of the victim is more an act of providence while the appellant did all within his powers to eliminate the victim. There is absolutely no infirmity on the basis of which the impugned judgement may be castigated and therefore, there is no good reason to take a liberal view in the matter. So far as the submission with regard to self defence of the accused-appellant is concerned, it is a lame explanation of defence which has been somehow carved out in order to justify the extreme felony which has been resorted to by the accused-appellant and in fact, this kind of self defence plea that has been taken, contains complete admission about the participation of the accused-appellant in the crime and it is virtually a confession.
I have considered the submissions raised at the bar and perused the record in the light of the same.
Ordinarily, this Court leans favourably towards the accused where he undergoes more than half of sentence. But it goes without saying that such a consideration cannot be brought into application as a straight jacket formula to be applied in a cut and dried manner without keeping in perspective the merits of the case. This Court has no reason to disagree with the submissions raised by learned A.G.A. that survival of the victim is a providential act of clemency while the applicant did everything which he could in order to cause death of the deceased. The injuries received by the victim were of very grave nature and he had a close shave with the death. The Court does not see any fault in the impugned judgement which may constitute any legitimate basis to criticize the same or which may carve out even a prima facie case of bail in favour of the accused-appellant.
Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 8.5.2018
Naresh
