Vakalatnama filed by Sri Shivakant Awasthi on behalf of the first informant is taken on record.
Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri, Shivakant Awasthi, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Ayush Dixit, seeking enlargement on bail involved in Case Crime No. 57 of 2020, under Sections 302, 384, 504 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Derapur, District Kanpur Dehat.
Learned Senior counsel argued that the occurrence in the present matter is said to have taken place on 06.03.2020 at 9:30 PM for which a first information report was registered at 00:44 hrs by Ajay Kumar who is the father of the deceased and claims himself to be an eye-witness. It is argued that the first informant though states that the applicant had shot upon his son as a result of which he received injuries and was taken to the hospital by persons of the village but the same gets falsified from the report of the hospital which was sent after the death of the deceased to the police station, wherein, it was stated that the deceased was brought by Sumit Shukla who is the brother of the deceased. It is argued that the deceased remained in the hospital for five minutes after which he died. It is argued that even in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has stated the same thing regarding the assault made by the applicant but has slightly improved the version by stating that he along with other family members had gone to the hospital. It is argued that as per the first information report, the case is a case of two shots which is specifically mentioned as that to be fired on the neck and back of the deceased but the same does not corroborate with the medical evidence as the present case is a case of single shot which has an entry and exit wound. It is argued that the occurrence in the present case is said to have taken place on 06.03.2020 but the statement of Sumit Shukla the brother of the deceased who is said to have taken him at the first instance to the hospital was recorded after about two months i.e. on 05.05.2020 for the first time. It is argued that the first informant, as such was not an eye-witness to the incident and the present case which is a case of night incident is a case of hit and run in which the son of the deceased received injury and died. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 34 and is in jail since 07.03.2020.
Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and the learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It was argued by both the counsels that the applicant is named in the first information report and has been assigned the specific role of firing upon the deceased with a country made pistol. It is argued that the country made pistol was thrown by the applicant at the said place of occurrence which has been recovered by the Investigating Officer. It is further argued that there are other eye-witnesses of the incident who have been interrogated and have stated the applicant to be involved in the present case and have stated him to have shot on the deceased as a result of which, he died. It is argued that the prosecution version is a clear and a natural version of the incident. It is argued that in so far as the fact regarding the father of the deceased not being an eye-witness to the incident is concerned, the said incident had occurred at shop of the deceased, where the presence of the first informant would be natural along with other family members and could not be disputed.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)