Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12004 of 2021 Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Jaisawal Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramesh Chand
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
This is the second bail application of the applicant. First bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J. vide order dated 01.11.2018, which is annexed at page 262 of the paper book.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ramesh Chand, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Applicant-Krishna Kumar Jaiswal seeks bail in Sessions Trial No.80 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No.388 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 286, 302, 307, 504, 34 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Gopiganj, District- Bhadohi.
As per the prosecution version, on 17.12.2016 at about 08.30 A.M. the applicant armed with riffle and five others armed with Katta, Knife and Sword came to the house of first informant, on account of an altercation which had taken a day before on the issue of parking of motorcycle, then the applicant is alleged to have fired from his riffle which hit in the abdomen of deceased Collector Yadav. The other accused also resorted to firing causing injury to two other injured.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.
In fact, the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident and has not come out with clean hands. The reality is that on the fateful day, the prosecution party was aggressor and they had caused injury to the applicant and two other persons who were examined on the same day.
Learned counsel has also challenged the place of incident stating that in fact the prosecution version that the applicant and other accused came at the house of the first informant is not supported by site plan. The prosecution has also not offered any plausible and satisfactory explanation for the injuries sustained by three persons including the applicant from the defence side.
Learned counsel for the applicant was asked by this Court what are the additional grounds and what are the new facts which may be considered but he was unable to narrate additional grounds for granting bail to the applicant.
On the other hand learned A.G.A. submitted that present applicant is the main accused who had fired on the deceased by his riffle and ballistic expert report of the riffle shows that it was used and ballistic report also indicates that the empty cartridges were found from the spot tallied with the riffle used by the applicant in the present incident.
Learned A.G.A. further submitted that injuries found on the person of the accused are superficial in nature which may be manufactured falsely. He further submitted that the applicant is the main accused, who had committed murder of the deceased in the broad day light, therefore, the applicant should not be entertained.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the applicant is the main accused whose fire had hit the deceased, this Court is not obliged to grant bail.
The application is devoid of merit and is rejected.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Asha