Allahabad High Court
Rishi Pal And Another vs State Of U.P. on 3 May, 2019
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1364 of 2019
Appellant :- Rishi Pal And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Chetan Chatterjee
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Dwivedi
Connected with
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 902 of 2019
Appellant :- Pappu
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Satyaveer Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Dwivedi
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State on bail application. Perused the record.
By a common judgement dated 10.1.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Firozabad, the accused-appellants Rishi Pal, Rajendra and Pappu have been convicted in S.T. No. 53 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 40 of 2004, P.S. Narkhi, District Firozabad and sentenced for the offence under section 307 IPC, for seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, for the offence under section 323 IPC, for one year imprisonment and for the offence under section 504 IPC, for two years imprisonment.
Submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellants is that accused-Pappu has no relation with other co-accused persons and, therefore, his participation in the offence is highly doubtful.
Submission of learned counsel for other co-accused persons is that role of firing has been assigned to Pappu and injured persons have sustained firearm injury and there is no role of co-accused persons of causing injury by firearm.
On these grounds, learned counsel for the accused-appellants are requesting that they are entitled for bail in this matter.
Learned counsel for the accused-Pappu has pointed out towards statement of Urmila Devi, who is widow of injured. In her statement, it has come that finger of injured was cut by a sharp weapon. From perusal of her statement, it appears that in the very beginning the witnesses have supported that injured Rati Ram sustained firearm injury in his finger. Further submission is that accused-appellants were on bail during trial and they never misused the liberty of bail. They are languishing in jail since 09.1.2019.
On the contrary, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants after appreciating evidence on record. He has also submitted that in the incident firearm has been used to cause injury and one of the injured person has sustained serious injury also. He has also submitted that since from the evidence it is clear that all three accused-persons were assigned role of firing and they participated in the commission of offence, they are not entitled to bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also that firearm has been used in the incident and firearm injury has also been caused to the injured, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present accused-appellants.
Accordingly, bail applications of accused-appellants-Rishi Pal, Rajendra and Pappu in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2013, Case Crime No. 40 of 2004, under Sections 307, 323/34, 504 IPC, P.S. Narkhi, District Firozabad, is rejected.
List the appeal for hearing in due course.
Order Date :- 3.5.2019
RCT/-
