Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4605 of 2013 Appellant :- Anil Kumar And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Reserved on 24.05.2018 Delivered on 30.05.2018 Counsel for Appellant :- Ajatshatru Pandey,Gopal S. Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,R.R. Singh,S.D. Singh Jadaun
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.
Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajatshatru Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri S.D. Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri R.K. Maurya, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This is the first bail application filed on behalf of appellants, namely, Anil Kumar, Rajnish Kumar, Suddu @ Rajeev, Guddu @ Ram Kishan and Mamma @ Nanhey @ Ramakant in the instant criminal appeal.
Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel for the appellants has laid much emphasis on the nature of injuries specifically injury nos. 5, 8 and 9. It has been contended that the incident could not have occurred in the manner as described in the FIR and thus it is apparent that there were no eye witnesses and somebody has killed the man at leisure and thereafter, body has been burned, much has been said about the way in which the injury could or could not have been caused by a 'banka'.
Sri S.D. Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed the bail application with the contention that it has not been mentioned in the FIR that all the three injuries by 'banka' were caused at the first instance or at the first strike of the 'banka'. It has been further contended that it is just possible that initially a blow was given to the deceased and when he had fallen down from the motorcycle and had tried to escape by running from the spot, he was chased and it was thereafter injury nos. 5, 8 and 9 were caused. Sri Jadaun has also placed much reliance in support of his contention on the injury nos. 6 and 7 to show that the injuries of banka were caused later on and not at the first instance i.e. when the deceased was driving the motorcycle.
Sri R.K. Maurya, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail with the contention that it is a day light incident in which the deceased has received a number of injuries and he has been brutally done to death and thereafter the body has been burned. The attention of the Court has been drawn to the fact that previous enmity also exists and thus, it has been contended that appellants had a motive of committing the crime. Sri Maurya further contended that the grave and heinous manner in which the crime has been committed disentitle the appellants for grant of any indulgence whatsoever of this Court.
Learned A.G.A. has also drawn the attention of the Court to the criminal history of the appellants, which has been annexed as annexure no.1 to the counter affidavit filed by the State and he also submits that merely because some injuries have not been explained and if there is some dispute with regard to the manner in which the said injuries have been caused, will not entitle the appellants to grant of any indulgence whatsoever of this Court. Learned A.G.A. has emphasized that the ocular version always prevails over the medical evidence.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case for grant of indulgence has been made out.
Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected with the aforesaid observations.
(Mahboob Ali,J.) (Vipin Sinha,J.) Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Radhika