Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4564 of 2018 Appellant :- Kapil Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Kishor Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
And Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4565 of 2018 Appellant :- Manoj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Kishor Gupta,Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi,Shiv Shankar Gupta,Sr. Adv. Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
As indicated in the counter affidavit, Annexure CA-1, filed by the learned A.G.A., notice has been served on the informant personally, yet no one has appeared on their behalf to oppose the bail prayer in the instant appeals.
Since both the appeals arise out of same Case Crime Number, they are being disposed of by a common order.
Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Ram Kishor Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Both appeals have been filed against the judgement and order dated 23.07.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Meerut in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 3569 & 3568 of 2018 (Kapil & Manoj Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 390 of 2018, under Sections 302, 34, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kankerkhera, District- Meerut, by which bail plea of appellants has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that order of the learned court below rejecting bail application of applicants-appellants is bad in law. It is argued that as per the first information report, on 04.04.2018 at about 5 P.M., informant's nephew Gopi was going to market for buying household goods. In the way, on account of old enmity, appellants Kapil, Manoj and two others namely Aashish and Girdhari resorted to firing on the deceased Gopi and thereafter they fled from the place of incident. It is further submitted that father of the deceased Tarachand Pariya then submitted an application at Police Station Kankerkhera on 05.04.2018 which was noted in GD No.53 at 12.53 hrs. in which it is stated that on 04.04.2018 at about 04 P.M. in the presence of his other son Shailendra, one Sunil came to his house and asked (Gopi) to accompany him as he was being called by his uncle Manoj near a temple. Thereafter, his son Gopi left with Sunil, his other son and two of his friends who were also present at the house and went to the temple where the named accused were already present and all of them were armed with firearms and they fired at his son Gopi who sustained injuries. It is argued that the manner of incident in the application given by the father of the deceased on the next day is totally inconsistent with the version setup in the F.I.R. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that in the statement of first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has only named accused Manoj, Aashish and Kapil and has not made any allegation against named accused Girdhari. Subsequent thereto, statements of some of the witnesses namely Charan Singh, Vijay and Rohit were recorded by the Investigating Officer in which the said witnesses have only made allegations of firing on the deceased on accused-appellants Manoj and Kapil, no role of firing was attributed to other co-accused Aashish and Girdhari. It is submitted that in view of the inconsistent prosecution version at this stage no reliance can be placed on the prosecution version that the appellants Manoj and Kapil only had resorted to firing. Therefore, the appellants who are languishing in jail since 05.04.2018 deserve to be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the deceased has sustained five firearm wound entry and exit which fully support the prosecution version of firing by the appellants and others. In any view of the matter, so far as the appellants Manoj and Kapil are concerned, there is consistent version of firing on the deceased. It was a broad day light incident which is stated to have taken place on 04.04.2018 at about 05 P.M. and the F.I.R. was registered at 08.02 P.M. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that so called inconsistencies in the prosecution version are concerned, it can at best be judged and appreciated during trial. However, at present the participation of the appellants is fully corroborated by the ocular and medical testimony. Therefore, the appellants may not be enlarged on bail.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel of both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of accusation against appellants and evidence in support of it, I do not find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence Bail applications are rejected.
In the result, appeals stand rejected.
Order Date :- 29.10.2018 Vikas