Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1809 of 2019 Applicant :- Amar Nath Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Mishra,Rajesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nitesh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
By means of this application the applicant Amar Nath Yadav has prayed to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 246 of 2018, u/s 307 I.P.C., P.S. Barhaj, District Deoria.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for informant, and Sri Om Narain Tripathi, learned AGA representing the State. Perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number, which is maximum up to offence punishable u/s 325 I.P.C. There is no evidence regarding injury over vital part of body or likely to be fatal or grievous in nature. There is variance in the statements of injured and informant. Source of light is not there in the F.I.R. There is variance regarding seat of injury. Medical report reveals presence of blackening i.e. close range shot, whereas injured and informant said in their statements that the shot was made from the roof of the applicant, which is in close proximity of the house of the applicant. There is enmity from both sides. The applicant is of no criminal antecedent. Hence bail has been prayed for.
Learned counsel for informant as well as learned AGA have vehemently opposed the bail application with this contention that the occurrence was of 03.10.2018 at 08.30 P.M. and instant report after medical help was got lodged on 4.10.2018 at 04.27 P.M. The role of giving firearm shot has been assigned against accused-applicant. There was motive for causing injury. Two persons are injured in this very occurrence and both of them have suffered firearm injuries over eye, skull and neck. They have been referred for specialized treatment to Lucknow and they remained there for treatment for fifteen days. It was grievous injury over vital parts and because of treatment they could be saved. There is consistency in the statements of the injured and informant coupled with testimony of independent eyewitness. There is likelihood of tempering with evidence and fleeing from course of justice, therefore, no case for bail is there and the prayer for bail be rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through the material placed on record it is apparent that it was instant report in which there is specific mention of giving firearm shot by accused - applicant resulting injuries to both injured over eye, skull and neck and after giving them medical treatment till Gorakhpur and when they were referred to Lucknow this report was lodged. Under this circumstance it was an instant report against accused-applicant and both the injured have suffered firearm injury over eye, skull and neck. This was said with intention to kill the informant as well as the injured. The injured were referred for specialized treatment to specialized centre and shifted to Medical College, Gorakhpur, and from there to Lucknow and they remained at Lucknow for treatment for more than fifteen days. Injury report reveals grievousness of injuries of Rajkumari Devi as well as of other injured in which specific mention of injury is there. Supplementary report reveals date of admission on 4.10.2018 and date of discharge on 16.10.2018. There was history of E.N.T. with bleeding. Statements of both the injured couple with informant and other witnesses are fully intact. Hence, minute discussion of evidence is not to be made at the time of disposal of bail application because it may prejudice trial. Under all above facts and circumstances, severity of punishment, heinousness of offence, likelihood of tampering of evidence and fleeing from course of justice, in case of release on bail, it is not a fit case for bail.
Rejected accordingly. Order Date :- 3.6.2019 Pcl