Back
2006 Supreme(All) 1535
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ravindra Singh, J.
Vinay Alias Matku, Karmvir Singh
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application 3618 of 2006
Decided On : 19 May 2006
Criminal Misc. Bail Application 3618 Of 2006
AMIT MISHRA, S.N.Mishra, VIRESH MISHRA,
The prompt lodging of the F. I. R., the nature of injuries, and the criminal background of the applicant were crucial factors in the court's decision to refuse bail.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Law - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I. P. C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I. P. C.) in the context of the alleged occurrence and the role of the accused. The court considered the prompt lodging of the F. I. R., the nature of injuries, and the criminal background of the applicant in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The bail application was filed by the applicant Vinay alias Matku seeking release on bail in a case involving Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I. P. C. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused were involved in a shooting incident resulting in the death of two individuals near a bank.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alleged occurrence took place in broad daylight, the F. I. R. was promptly lodged, and the role of firing was attributed to the applicant and co-accused. The court also noted the criminal background of the applicant and the witness testimonies, leading to the refusal of the bail application.
Issues: The issues revolved around the prompt lodging of the F. I. R., the nature of injuries, the criminal background of the applicant, and the witness testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the prompt lodging of the F. I. R., the nature of injuries, and the criminal background of the applicant in reaching its decision to refuse the bail application.
Final Decision: The bail application was rejected, and the applicant was not entitled to bail.
( 1 ) THIS bail application has been filed by the applicant Vinay alias Matku with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 70 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I. P. C. , p. S. Kandhla, district Muzaffarnagar.
( 2 ) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that in the present case the F. I. R. was lodged by Satyendra at p. S. Kandhla on 25. 2. 2005 at 2. 30 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 25. 2. 2005 at 1. 50 p. m. , the distance of the police station was about 6 kms from the alleged place of occurrence. The F. I. R. has been lodged against the applicant and co-accused Anurodh alias pintoo and Karamveer. It is alleged that on 25. 2. 2005 at about 1. 50 p. m. the deceased Rajveer singh, Pramod, Devendra, Krishna Pal, Ashok and Ram pal were going to Punjab National bank, Alam. When they reached near the bank one black coloured scorpio car came there, from which the applicant and co-accused Anurodh alias Pintoo, Karamveer and 2 unknown persons armed with automatic firearm came out and all the five accused persons discharged the shots at the deceased Rajveer Singh. He ran towards the bank to save his life but before he could enter in the bank he was shot dead by the applicant and others. The deceased Pramod came in rescue of the deceased Rajveer Singh, but he was also murdered by causing the firearm injuries. The alleged incident was witnesses by Devendra, Krishna Pal Singh, Ashok and Ram Pal who had narrated the entire story to the first informant. The dead body of the deceased Rajveer Singh was lying at the door of the Punjab National Bank and the dead body of deceased Pramod was lying on the road. According to post mortem examination reports the deceased Rajveer Singh had received 4 gunshot wound of entries and 3 gunshot wound of exit. Deceased Pramod Kumar had received 2 gunshot wound of entries, two exit wounds and one abraded contusion.
( 3 ) HEARD Sri Viresh Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Mishra learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri S. N. Mishra learned Counsel for the complainant.
( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that: (
i) the first informant is not an eye witness. He has lodged the F. I. R. on the basis of the information received from other person.
(ii) The prosecuting agency itself is not relying upon the statement of the witnesses because in the F. I. R. the applicant and co-accused Anurodh alias Pintoo and Karamveer have been named and two miscreants were unknown persons and the driver of the vehicle was also unknown. It is alleged that except the driver all the accused persons discharged the shots by automatic weapons, consequently, the deceased received injuries, but during the course of investigation, it was revealed that it was a case of gang war. The real assailants were not implicated, but on account of enmity the applicant and other co-accused persons have been named in the F. I. R. and the I. O. came to conclusion that 2 named accused Anurodh alias Pintoo and Karmveer have falsely implicated. Therefore, no charge sheet has been submitted against them, the charge sheet has been submitted only against the applicant. Co-accused Anurodh alias Pintoo is handicapped and co-accused Karamveer Singh has been falsely implicated due to some political reasons.
(iii) The deceased Rajveer Singh was Chariman, he was having enmity with Ram Kishan. Ram kishan was murdered by one Neetu. Neetu was protected by deceased Rajveer Singh, but in the year 2002 an assault was made on deceased Rajveer Singh. In that case the applicant and Ram kishan were named as an accused. One Yogesh an associate of Ram Kishan wanted to take a revenge from the deceased Rajveer Singh. Yogesh is also a friend of the applicant. To fulfil the aim of revenge the deceased was murdered by a gang of yogesh, but the applicant has been falsely implicated. Neetu gang had also murdered 4 persons on the patronage
