Allahabad High Court
Prem Kumar Pandey @ Chunky Pandey vs State Of U.P. on 16 May, 2022
Author: Ali Zamin
Bench: Ali Zamin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?e-court Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47755 of 2021 Applicant :- Prem Kumar Pandey @ Chunky Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwani Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamlesh Shrama Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 446 of 2021, under Section 323, 376, 406, 504, 506, 34 IPC, P.S. Gagha, District Gorakhpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to FIR version, victim was 24 years old at the time of incident on 16.08.2020 at 7.00 a.m. in the morning father of the informant Rajeshwar Pandey was cleaning the grass in his share's land in the backyard, which was objected by the applicant and other co-accused, on exhortation of the accused applicant fired on the deceased, due to which he died on the spot. The incident was witnessed by mother of the informant- Poonam Pandey, sister Vineeta Pandey & other sisters were also present there. Villagers also assembled thereby hearing the noise of firing and witnessed the incident. He further submits that informant is also a convicted person. As per prosecution version, applicant fired on the deceased but no one tried to save him. As per FIR version, incident occurred at 7.00 a.m. but post mortem was conducted at 3.50 p.m., in which duration of death was found one day before. He also submits that incident occurred at some other place and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He next submits that due to dispute of "Sahan" applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He next submits that in Case Crime No. 179 of 1994 except applicant all the family members were convicted and appeal is pending before this court, only applicant was not made accused in that case and he was doing pairvi that is why he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that incident occurred at 7.00 a.m. and FIR has been lodged at 3.16 p.m., in a planned manner he has been implicated in this case. As per site plan, location of the witnesses has not been shown. He also submits that fire shot was made at the back of the deceased but as per post mortem report, injury has been found below chest. He next submits that according to prosecution, incriminating arms were recovered but it has not been disclosed in the recovery memo. He further submits that earlier a dispute had taken place between applicant side and informant side, regarding which FIR under Section 147, 395, 307, 504 and 506 IPC has been lodged by Satya Prakash Pandey (uncle of the applicant), which was registered as Case Crime No. 352 of 2021 and in that case informant and his family members committed marpeet, loot of jewellary, other valuable articles and cash of Rs. 57,000/- and also damaged goods of the house. Applicant has no criminal history. He next submits that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail,the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.08.2020.
Per contra learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by submitting that applicant has been assigned main role of causing injury to the deceased and alleged country made pistol used in the incident has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. They further submit Poonam Pandey, Vineeta Pandey, Aditya Pandey and Sarvagyamuni are eye witnesses of incident.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, role assigned to the applicant, as per post mortem report injury caused to the deceased, recovery of weapon used in the incident I do not find it a fit case for bail, without expressing opinion on merit, the prayer for bail of the applicant Prem Kumar Pandey @ Chunkey Pandey is hereby refused and the bail application is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the aforesaid case in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible.
Order Date :- 16.5.2022 MAA/-