Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 12 April, 2022
Bench: Om Prakash Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8990 of 2022
Applicant :- Raj Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Pathik,A.K.Chaudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant Raj Kumar for enlarging him on bail in connection with S.T. No.1003 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.155 of 2021, under Sections 307 IPC, registered at Police Station- Raya, District- Mathura, during the pendency of trial.
The case of prosecution is that on 24.05.2021, informant's brother namely, Pushpendra had gone to the house of one Vimal s/o Ishwari Prasad at about 02:30 pm. Applicant who is also resident of informant's village reached the house of Vimal and had heated discussion with injured Pushpendra, applicant fired upon Pushpendra. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has no motive or pre-meditation to commit the alleged offence. On the pointing out of the applicant, country made pistol has been recovered from an open area. Applicant is languishing in jail since 02.06.2021. Injured was medically examined on 24.05.2021 at 03:20pm in District Hospital, Mathura and following injuries were found :
i) lacerated wound 1x1cm over in shape near right upper culivacal later aspect
ii) 2x1cm over right side of chest, 11cm from axila margine outwards.
iii) multiple abrasion which was kept under observation and x-ray was advised.
iv) multiple whole size abrasion in front of chest
v) multiple pin whole size abrasion over left side of chest measuring 20x20cm. Injury nos.1 and 2 are kept under observation.
In the x-ray report, a metallic density foreign body in soft tissue plane of right lateral aspect of chest wall, a fracture of lateral border of right scapula bone was seen. Injuries sustained by the injured do not co-relate the prosecution story as well as statement of injured. Applicant has been roped in this case due to Pradhani election. The alleged offence is not beyond the scope of Section 324 IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Parsuram Pandey and others vs. State of Bihar AIR 2004 Supreme Court 5068. In paragraph no.14 of the said citation, it has been opined by the Hon'ble Apex Court that two ingredients must be present for the offence under Section 307 IPC :
i) an intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder; and
ii) the doing of an act towards it.
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently objected the bail application and submitted that incident took place in day light. Applicant belongs to the same village and well known to the informant/injured. Injury no.1 is grievous in nature which is above the chest and bone below the neck. There is still a cartridge in the shoulder bone of the injured. On the pointing out of the applicant, used country made pistol has been recovered. In case of ocular evidence, intention becomes irrelevant. No ground to implicate the applicant falsely by the informant. Injured supported the prosecution case and stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that applicant is the sole perpetrator of the crime. Applicant has caused fire arm injury to the informant on his vital part. Applicant has committed a very serious offence, therefore, his bail application is liable to be rejected.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as considering the complicity of the accused, nature of accusation, evidence collected by I.O. in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of punishment in case of conviction, complicity of the accused and all other attending circumstances were duly considered. I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant, thus the bail applicant is stands rejected at this stage.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible from the date of receipt of certified/computerized copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 12.4.2022
Priya
