Allahabad High Court
Pawan Kumar @ Bhure vs State Of U.P. on 11 April, 2023
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 210 of 2023 Applicant :- Pawan Kumar @ Bhure Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Sunder Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghubir Singh Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Rajneesh Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Session Trial No.1022 of 2022, Case Crime No. 54 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506, 34 IPC, P.S. Khera Rathaur, District Agra, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that applicant/accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The first information report has been lodged against 14 accused persons including the applicant and that only general allegations have been levelled that all the accused persons made firing at deceased persons. In postmortem report of deceased Mahesh, one firearm wound of entry has been shown and in postmortem report of deceased Dinesh, four entry wounds of firearm injury and four exit wounds have been shown and thus, both the deceased persons have sustained five bullet injuries, whereas, first information report has been lodged against 14 persons. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. Learned counsel has pointed out that in the inquest report of deceased Mahesh Singh, the time of starting of inquest proceedings has been shown as 13:35 hours on 16.12.2021 and similarly the inquest proceedings of deceased Dinesh Singh were also started at the same time but there is no particulars like crime number etc. of the case in the inquest report, whereas, the FIR has been shown registered on 16.12.2021 at 12:52 hours and thus, it is apparent that first information report is ante-time. Except the deceased persons, no other person has sustained any injury. It is further submitted that applicant is working as a truck driver and that he has taken goods in his truck on 13.12.2021 from Mathura to Samastipur, Bihar and that applicant was present at Samastipur on 16.12.2021. In this connection learned counsel has referred the copy of voucher, which has been annexed along with supplementary affidavit. While staying at Samastipur, the applicant has also lodged a missing report regarding loss of his mobile phone, the copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the bail application. Learned counsel submitted that the above facts and circumstances clearly show that at the time of incident applicant was present in Samastipur. It is further submitted that accused Satendra, who has also raised plea of alibi, has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.05.2022 and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is named in the first information report. In the alleged incident two persons have been murdered. The eye-witnesses have clearly stated about the presence of applicant. There is no satisfactory evidence to show that at the time of incident applicant was in Samastipur. Referring to documents referred by the learned counsel for the applicant, it was submitted that on the basis of said documents, it cannot be said that applicant was present at Samastipur. It is further submitted that attending facts and circumstances of the case clearly show that both the deceased persons were murdered by the accused persons in pursuance to common object. It is further submitted that co-accused Satendra was working as a teacher in government school and his case is on different footing. Further bail application of similarly placed co-accused Devi Singh and Shiv Kumar has already been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of case, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the bail application of applicant Pawan Kumar @ Bhure is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 11.4.2023 A. Tripathi