Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31399 of 2021 Applicant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh @ Dabloo Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Singh,Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Devottam Pandey Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in case crime no. 273 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 352, 504, 506 IPC, 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 30 Arms Act, P.S. Reoti, District Ballia.
Heard Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shashank Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Devottam Pandey , learned counsel for informant as well as the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. No prima facie case is made out against the applicant. In fact there is a cross version of the present matter. Both sides have sustained injuries. Prosecution has not explained injuries sustained by the person belonging to the applicant's side. To substantiate this argument, learned Senior Counsel referred to injury reports of the person belonging to the applicant's side annexed with the application and further submitted that though initially no F.I.R. was lodged on the part of the applicant and one NCR was lodged yet on the order passed on the application under Section 156(3) CrPC F.I.R. was lodged against the informant side also for the offence under Sections 307 and 308 IPC. Injuries sustained by the person belonging to the applicant's side are grievous in nature and have occurred in the same incident. It will not be possible to determine at this stage as to who was the aggressor in the present matter. Since both sides have received injuries, applicant cannot be kept behind the bar. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to contents of the F.I.R. and further submitted that though specific role for causing injuries to the deceased is assigned to the applicant yet this fact itself is not sufficient to deny the applicant from bail. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel referred to the statement of the S.D.M. concerned and other witnesses and further submitted that they themselves have admitted that both sides were quarrelling. None has seen the applicant causing the injuries to the deceased and only there is assertion that some one had opened fire upon the deceased. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to post mortem report of the deceased and further submitted that though fire arm injury was found on the body of deceased yet informant's side was aggressor. The applicant has no criminal history. He is languishing in jail since 15.10.2020 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
On the other hand, learned counsel for informant as well as the learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that deceased died due to the fire arm injuries caused by the applicant. There are eye account witnesses. Medical evidence fully supports the oral version. It is not a case of cross version. Injuries said to have been sustained by the injured person belonging to the applicant's side were caused in different incident. A prima facie case is made out.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.
A perusal of the record reveals that specific role for causing fire arm injury to the deceased has been assigned to the applicant. Medical evidence also reveals that deceased died due to fire arm injuries sustained by him. Hence, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of offence, complicity of accused, scrutinizing the facts mentioned in the F.I.R., statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, medical evidence, 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 is liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 safi