1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh learned Additional Government Advocate, assisted by Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder representing the State and perused the record of the case.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-Jonis Alias Johny with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.289 of 2020, under Sections 452, 504, 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station-Baraut, District-Baghpat, during the pendency of trial.
3. As per the prosecution case, informant Somveer lodged an F.I.R. on 06.05.2020 regarding an incident which took place on 05.05.2020 against the applicant Jonis @ Johny and co-accused Monu @ Manish alleging inter alia that his brother Ramveer (deceased) was assaulted by lathi-danda and iron rod by Jonis @ Johny and co-accused Monu @ Manish inside the house of the informant's sister where the deceased was living and the occurrence was committed pursuant to an altercation, which happened relating to consumption of liquor.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and informant is not an eye-witness of the incident. The alleged eye-witness Rajpal in his statement has stated that at the time of the incident, he was walking outside the house, where occurrence took place. Referring to the said statement, it is submitted that since the incident took place inside the house therefore, there was no occasion for the alleged eye-witness Rajpal to see the occurrence, therefore the allegation leveled against both the accused named in F.I.R. is false and fabricated. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.05.2020 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that learned counsel for the applicant did not place the entire statement of eye-witness Rajpal before this Court and placed reliance only on few lines of his statement. He further submits that the eye-witness Rajpal in his statement has also stated that on hearing hue and cry, he along with other persons of the locality went at the spot and saw the incident. He also disclosed that accused Jonis @ Johny (applicant) was armed with iron rod, Monu was armed with danda. Other co-accused, namely, Jogendra and Nempal were also there without any arms. On the exhortation of present applicant-Jonis @ Johny, co-accused Jogendra and Nempal caught hold the deceased and thereafter Jonis @ Johny and Monu assaulted the deceased on his head by iron rod and danda. As per the Post Mortem Report of the deceased, two injuries have been found on the head of the deceased- (i) A L.W. of size 6.0 cm x 1.0 cm x deep to Bone over mid parietal bone, margin irregular, clotted blood present, parietal bone fracture present. (ii) A L.W. of size 5.0 cm x 3.0 cm x deep to bone over right occipital bone, 7.0 cm from right ear pinna, margine irregular, clotted blood present, which are fully corroborated with the prosecution case. Therefore, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
6. After having heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., I find that Rajpal is an eye an witness of the incident and he has assigned specific role of causing fatal injury by iron rod on the head of the deceased to the applicant, which is fully corroborated from the injuries found on the body of deceased as mentioned above and deceased died due to said injuries. The offence is heinous in nature. The applicant and co-accused Monu are the main accused in this case. In view of above, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail, at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the application for bail of applicant is rejected.
Order Date :- 19.8.2021 SK Goswami