Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9119 of 2021 Applicant :- Kamal Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hirdesh Kumar Yadav,Sushma Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Shri Hirdesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
By means of the present application the applicant is seeking his anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.44 of 2021, under Sections 307 I.P.C., Police Station-Raksha, District-Jhansi.
From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Session vide order dated 9.3.2021.
Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is having licensee rifle and the injuries do not corroborate with the dimensions of injuries sustained by the injured.
The applicant is sole named accused who has been attributed the role of indiscriminate firing upon the informant and his elder brother Bundel Singh and maternal uncle Ramjash Yadav. Injury report of the injured clearly indicates that there are multiple injuries over thigh of the injured. So far as the contention with regard to non-compatibility of injury with its dimension, these all are the matters of investigation.
Taking into account the gravity of accusation, the Court feels that in order to have indepth probe into the matter, the Investigating Officer of the case should be given fullest liberty to choose its own course for the transparent investigation. Thus, giving a panoramic view of the matter the Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicant, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby REJECTED. .
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 M. Kumar