Pratap vs State Of U.P.
2019 Latest Caselaw 4412 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 74
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9543 of 2018
 

 
Applicant :- Pratap
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh,Dharmendra Singh,Krishna Kumar Singh,Rakesh Kumar Verma,S.C.Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Pratap who is involved in Case Crime No. 231 of 2017, under section 302 IPC, P.S. Bahjoi, District Sambhal.

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

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. According to postmortem report 9 injuries have been found on the body of the deceased but no explanation has been given on behalf of prosecution with regard to the injuries of deceased except gun shot injury. Informant Ompal Singh, father of deceased, is not the eye witness of the alleged occurrence. Subhash and Arvind have claimed themselves to be eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence. In fact, at the time of alleged occurrence they were not present at the place of occurrence. None have seen the alleged occurrence. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to village party bandi. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 29.3.2017.

Per contra; learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is main accused. In FIR as well as in the statements of eye witnesses it has come that applicant shot fire upon the deceased. There was illicit relation in between the sister of applicant and deceased due to which on 25.3.2017 at about 11:00 A.M. the applicant and his father Ramji Mal took away the deceased and committed his murder. In postmortem report the cause of death of the deceased has been shown haemorrhage and shock due to fire arm injury. The applicant is named in the FIR. There are eye witnesses of the alleged incident. The applicant has committed the murder of the deceased, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

Consequently, the prayer for bail of the applicant is refused and the bail application of the applicant Pratap is hereby rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

Order Date :- 13.5.2019

Masarrat