Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56895 of 2019 Applicant :- Pinki @ Rajesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over bail application moved by applicant, Pinki @ Rajesh, in Case Crime No. 70 of 2019, under Sections- 302, 504 I.P.C. P.S. Kampil, District- Farrukhabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused- applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 12.3.2019; he is of no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail; the injury is single firearm shot, that too, with blackening and tattooing from front side over chest, whereas Chhote Lal, in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., has said the shot to be made from back side; Beche Lal- informant was not present on spot, as per his own contention; there is variance that his brother deceased had come to his home and on the way this occurrence took place, meaning thereby informant was not present on spot; there is no eyewitness account; the occurrence is of 7:00 P.M. and false implication was requested to be made by informant, as has been said by Chhote Lal in his statement, hence, previous enmity in between is an admitted one; motive for false implication is there and medical situation is against the sequence of occurrence, being said. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed with this contention that instant report in that very night was got registered, wherein, specific role of giving firearm shot is against Pinki @ Rajesh i.e. present applicant; nowhere, it is said that informant was not present on spot, first information report is not encyclopedia, rather, an information of commission of offence, the specific question is there in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to informant as to whether he was present on spot, it has specifically been replied to be yes, he was present on spot and had witnessed the occurrence; the other witness Jeet Singh is also of the same tune of giving firearm shot by applicant, resulting injury, subsequently, death; the same is there in the instant inquest proceeding.
Having heard learned counsels for both sides and gone through materials placed on record, it is apparent that it is an instant report with specific mention of giving firearm shot by applicant, resulting death of deceased; the injury is single shot having blackening and tattooing over it i.e. a close range firearm shot given by applicant is there.
Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but, without commenting on merits of the case, no ground for bail is made out.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Kamarjahan