Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7950 of 2021 Applicant :- Lalbahadur Singh @ Deepak Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhavya Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sandeep Singh
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the informant is taken on record.
This bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant Lalbahadur Singh @ Deepak Singh involved in case crime no.523 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 396, 323, 504, 506, 427, 412 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Saidpur, District Ghazipur.
Heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Bhavya Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State as well as Sri Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material available on record.
Sri Sahai, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has not committed the present offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He is not named in the F.I.R. No overt act has been assigned against the applicant. Main role of causing firearm injury has been assigned to named accused Karamveer Singh and Anand Singh. At this juncture, learned counsel has referred to the statement of injured witness / eye account witness and further argued that they have also not specified the role of the applicant. It is next argued that prosecution case is also based on CCTV footage, but what actual role was played by the applicant has also not been made clear by the witnesses interrogated by the investigating officer. At this stage, learned counsel has referred to the postmortem report and further submits that although number of injuries were found on the body of the deceased, but out of these injuries, injury no.1 was fatal, which cannot be attributed to the applicant. No motive to commit crime has been assigned to the applicant. It has also not been made clear that what weapon the applicant was actually carrying. It is next contended that name of the applicant came to light in the subsequent statement of the informant. In fact, applicant was standing at the petrol pump for purchase of fuel and due to that reason, he was figured in the CCTV footage and on account of which witnesses have named the applicant in committing the present offence. Referring to the entire evidence collected by the investigating officer, it is further argued that if the entire prosecution case is taken into consideration, then also main role of causing injuries to the deceased can be attributed to the accused named in the F.I.R. Next argument is that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. At this juncture, learned counsel has also referred to the statement of witnesses and further argued that all the witnesses have stated same type of evidence. Thus, prayer for bail has been made, as applicant is languishing in jail since 20.10.2020 having no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that although applicant is not named in the F.I.R., but his name came to surface on the basis of CCTV footage. 12 injuries were found on the body of the deceased including the firearm injuries, out of which injury no.1 was found to be fatal. Incident took place outside and inside the room of the petrol pump. All the accused, whose names were disclosed in the investigation, were identified through CCTV camera footage installed at the petrol pump, who have actually participated in commission of the crime. They were armed with deadly weapons. Deceased had received firearm injuries as well as other injuries said to have been caused by the butt of the gun. Thus, a prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, complicity of the accused, scrutinizing the facts mentioned in the F.I.R., statement of witnesses, 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 rejected.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 ss