Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2698 of 2021 Applicant :- Santu Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the informant and learned A.G.A.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant to enlarge him on bail in case crime no. 0355 of 2020, under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, district Banda.
Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that applicant is innocent and has not committed the present offence. It is further argued that incident is said to have taken place on 22.05.2020 at about 22.30 hrs. FIR was lodged on the next day i.e. 23.05.2020 at 16.49 hrs. Although specific role for causing injury on the chest of the deceased with the weapon "Bhala" is assigned against the applicant but medical evidence does not support the prosecution version. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the post mortem report and further argued that Doctor concerned who has conducted the post mortem has opined that all the injuries found on the body of the deceased were caused with the blunt object. Thus, referring to the aforesaid fact it was also argued that it was a night hour incident, none has seen the incident. FIR was lodged on the basis of false facts and due to that reason there is contradiction in oral and medical evidence. To substantiate this argument learned counsel appearing for the applicant argued that independent witnesses when reached at the place of occurrence the witnesses already present on the spot were naming only two persons as culprit. This fact also shows that none has seen the incident. Prosecution has also not made clear the source of light. Although place of incident is infront of the house of the deceased but no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. Applicant is in jail since 26.05.2020 having no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant argued that specific role for causing "Bhala" injuries is assigned to the applicant which is supported by the medical evidence. Referring to the nature of the injury no. 1 disclosed in the post mortem report it was also argued that Doctor's opinion is false. It was further argued that there are eye account witnesses. Incident took place in front of the house of the deceased and they were present on the spot and have seen the incident. Thus, referring to the entire document, it was further argued that a prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
Having considered the rival submissions, going through the entire record and also taking into consideration the contents of the FIR as well as specific role for causing "Bhala" injury assigned to the applicant, the court is of the opinion that applicant has not made out a case for bail.
Bail Application is hereby rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Sachdeva