Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 20 March, 2023
Bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi, Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 9
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1678 of 2022
Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.
Counsel for Appellant :- D.K. Singh Chauhan,R.B.S. Rathaur
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
(C.M. Application No.1 of 2022)
1. This first bail application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. has been moved in criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 28.6.2022 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No.619 of 2009, arising out of Case Crime No.455 of 2009, under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station Biswan, District Sitapur and Sessions Trial No.620 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No.456 of 2009, under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, Police Station Biswan, District Sitapur whereby the applicant/ applicant has been convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No.619 of 2009 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The appellant has further been convicted under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act in Sessions Trial No.620 of 2009 and sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment a fine of Rs.2000/-.
2. Heard Shri R.B.S.Rathaur, learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant and Shri Umesh Verma, learned A.G.A.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant is that there was no motive for the accused applicant to commit the murder of the deceased Raju who happened to be the real brother of the informant Raj Kumar Verma. The recovery of alleged firearm at the pointing out of the applicant/ appellant is highly doubtful. The ocular evidence does not match with the medical evidence. As per the ocular evidence, only one firearm shot is said to have made by the applicant/ appellant on the deceased while the post mortem examination report contains two firearm injuries over the body of the deceased. This is a major contradiction and creates doubt about the presence of the alleged eye witnesses at the spot. He further submitted that the applicant/appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since the date of conviction and also remained in jail for a period of nearly four and a half years during the pendency of the trial. Hence, the applicant/appellant should be released on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that the applicant/ appellant alongwith co convicts is named in the F.I.R. There is eye witness account of the incident. Medical evidence is in conformity with the ocular evidence. Merely because in the post mortem examination, two firearm injuries have been found sustained by the deceased and the witnesses have stated about one firearm shot, it cannot be doubted that the applicant fired upon the deceased. There is no reason to doubt the presence of the eye witnesses at the spot. Hence, the bail application should be rejected.
5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record as well as the judgement of the trial court.
6. It is evident from the record that the applicant/appellant was named in the F.I.R. There is eye witness account of the incident. The ocular evidence is in conformity with the medical evidence. Only for the reason that the eye witnesses have stated about only one firearm shot while the deceased received two firearm shots, the testimonies of eye witnesses cannot be doubted. At this stage, it also, cannot be doubted that the applicant/ appellant fired upon the deceased. The recovery of firearm was also made and proved at the pointing out of the applicant/ appellant. Hence, there appears to be no reason to enlarge the applicant/ appellant on bail.
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the impugned judgement of the trial court, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for enlargement of the appellant on bail. The first bail application is accordingly rejected.
8. The observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and shall have no bearing on final disposal of appeal on merits.
(Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J) (A.R.Masoodi,J)
Order Date :- 20.3.2023/Shukla
