Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24493 of 2021 Applicant :- Laloo Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Geetam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Geetam Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Laloo, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 03 of 2018 (S.T. No. 106 of 2018), under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, registered at Police Station Sungadhi, District Kasganj.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that as per the prosecution version, 04 accused persons including the applicant have been assigned the role of indiscriminate firing upon the deceased. The first information report has been registered by Tundi, the brother of the deceased. It is argued that subsequently, Tundi, Makardwaj, Smt. Vidyawati @ Bhagtin and Kumari Gungun were interrogated as eye- witnesses of the incident, who have stated that apart from firing upon the deceased, he was assaulted by butt of the country- made pistol. It is argued that the said version has been stated by Makardwaj who is alleged to be an eye-witness and also Smt. Vidyawati @ Bhagtin who is the wife of the deceased. It is further argued that the deceased as per the first information report although has been stated to have received seven injuries but the injury no.7, is the firearm wound of entry whereas there are five lacerated wounds and one traumatic swelling and the cause of death has been opined as shock & haemorrhage due to firearm injury. It is argued that as such, the implication of the applicant is false and there is a change in the prosecution version by two of the alleged eye-witnesses, whereby, the assault by butt of the country-made pistol has also been stated. The applicant is in jail since 01.02.2018.
Per contra, learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the first information report and has been assigned the role of firing upon the deceased along with other co-accused persons. It is further argued that from the possession of the applicant, a country- made pistol has been recovered, which was the weapon of assault. It is next argued that bail of co-accused Kripal Singh has been rejected vide order dated 31.07.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28580 of 2018. It is argued that the identically placed co-accused has been denied bail by a detailed order passed on merits by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and as such, the prayer for bail be rejected.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant has been assigned the role of firing upon the deceased along with three other co-accused persons. There is recovery of a country-made pistol on the pointing out of the applicant. Co-accused Kripal Singh has been denied bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)