Allahabad High Court
Golu Singh @ Nitesh vs State Of U.P. on 10 February, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46854 of 2018
Applicant :- Golu Singh @ Nitesh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Singh Kushwaha,Devendra Yadav,Mahesh Prasad Yadav,Mohammad Saleheen Ansari,Mohd. Farooq,Pradeep Kumar,Rajrshi Gupta,Shailendra Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Udai Shankar Chauhan
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
2. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.40 of 2018, under Sections 504, 302 IPC and Sections 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Bhudkuda, District Ghazipur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with two co-accused persons Munna Singh and Vimal Singh are said to have gone to the house of the informant and are stated to have asked for water for drinking liquor. On being asked by the deceased person to refrain from doing so and drink elsewhere, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have got enraged, as such applicant is stated to have fired on the head of the deceased person. The other co-accused persons are stated to have also fired at them one of the fire had hit the gate of the house on 14.7.2018 at about 10:30 p.m.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.7.2018. The period of incarceration may be considered to release him on bail. Learned counsel has further stated that the matter is of sudden provocation and does not go beyond Section 304 Part I I.P.C. Learned counsel has stated that applicant has no previous criminal antecedents to his credit except the case under Section 25 of Arms Act fastened on him after nomination in the present case at the time of said recovery of weapon at the pointing out of applicant from an open space. Learned counsel has stated that there is no ballistic expert report or forensic report to suggest that said weapon is used in the said offence.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and stated that already nine prosecution witnesses have been examined and all have supported the prosecution story. The trial is at fag end. The applicant is the main assailant who had caused firearm injury to the deceased person leading to his death the very next day. The bullet was retrieved from the cranial cavity of the deceased person.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the relevant documents on record and also the fact that already nine witnesses have been examined and the trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
9. However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order or as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 10.2.2023
Vikas
