Allahabad High Court
Rajan Singh vs State Of U.P. on 8 April, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17615 of 2020 Applicant :- Rajan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Srivastava,Ajay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamlendra Singh Jadaun,Onkar Singh Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
This Criminal Misc. Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in crime no. 186 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504 and 34 IPC, Police Station Hathras Junction, district Hathras.
Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Sri Onkar Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the informant and learned A.G.A.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that FIR was lodged in the matter on the basis of false facts. No specific role has been assigned in the FIR. Referring to the contents of the FIR as well as the statement of the witnesses it was further argued that none of the witness has made clear about the weapon used by the applicant. It is also argued that indiscriminate firing is said to have been made in the house of the informant by the accused persons but no charge sheet has been submitted under Section 452 IPC and some of the accused named in the FIR have been exonerated. Thus, referring to the aforesaid fact, it was further argued that non submission of the charge sheet against all the accused persons reflect that FIR has been lodged on the basis of false facts. It was next contended that one of the accused has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43858 of 2018 (Harendra Vs. State of U. P.). Thus, prayer was made to allow the present bail application.
Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. argued that all the accused have opened fire upon the informant side consequently two persons were done to death and the informant also sustained injuries. Referring to the medical evidence it was further argued that number of injuries were found on the body of the deceased at the time of post mortem. Learned counsel appearing for the informant also referred to the injury report of the injured and further argued that informant himself has sustained several injuries. Looking to the manner in which present offence has been committed no leniency could be extended to release him on bail. At this juncture learned counsel appearing for the informant also argued that prayer for bail of one of the accused Gajendra Singh has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2554 of 2019. Injuries found on the body of the deceased as well as injured could be caused by the weapon assigned to the present applicant. Role assigned to the applicant is distinguishable with the role assigned to the co-accused already released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail.
The bail application of the applicant Rajan Singh is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 8.4.2021 Sachdeva