Court No. - 33

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44335

of 2020

Applicant :- Dayanand Shukla

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh,Raj Kishor

Mishra

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Karunesh Pratap Singh

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Dayanand Shukla the applicant has sought enlargement on bail

in Case Crime No.600 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149,

302, 352, 34, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Gagaha,

District Gorakhpur, during pendency of trial.

As per avements made in First Information Report it is alleged

that at about 11.00 p.m. on 23.8.2020, accused persons namely

Rajesh Dubey, Ambuj, Raghvendra and Suman entered into

altercation regarding landed property of the parties, which

resulted in a fight. Informant side was abused and were beaten

by blunt objects (lathi, danda etc.). The informant himself

sustained injuries and came to Police Station Gagaha for

lodging the First Information Report. It is alleged that during

this period the persons, who initially entered into fight, called

upon other family members to go and kill all members of the

family of the complainant. It is thereafter that six persons

including applicant armed with lathi and danda came to the

house of informant and inflicted serious injuries, which caused

death of the wife and elder son of the informant. According to

informant number of persons including his daughter and

Devendra Dubey witnessed the incident and subsequently they

rushed at the spot.

The Court is informed that bail application filed by Rajesh

Dubey, being Bail Application No.42907 of 2020 has been

rejected. Bail application filed by Ambuj being Criminal Misc.

Bail Application No.44546 of 2020 has been allowed. Bail

application filed by Durgesh has been rejected by this Court on

23rd March, 2021.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that no specific role has

been assigned to applicant in the F.I.R. regarding the crime in

question. Only general allegations have been made against

applicant. It is also stated that as per the First Information

Report elder son of informant died on account of four incised

wounds sustained by him on his head and upper part of the

body, as well as a single lacerated wound. So far as the other

deceased i.e. wife of informant is concerned, she has sustained

two lacerated wounds, one of which is prominent. Learned

counsel for applicant further contends that the role of carrying

blunt object has been assigned to four persons, and therefore, it

is not clear as to which of the injury caused by hard and blunt

object and by whom was fatal. It is further submitted that

applicant has been falsely implicated, particularly as there is

dispute between the parties regarding property.

Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed this bail application.

He contends that as per the prosecution story in the F.I.R. six

persons namely Manoj, Durgesh, Vivekanand, Ramanand,

Dayanand (applicant herein) and Satyanand with a common

intention and common object assaulted the wife and son of

informant resulting in their death. Both the deceased have

together received more than six injuries and the number of

accused is six. As such no case for bail is made out.

Consequently the bail application is liable to be rejected.

The Court finds that the incident leading to death of the

deceased could broadly segregated into two parts. The first part

is with regard to fight between the parties over the property in

dispute at about 11.00 p.m. The First Information Report in that

regard contains a clear recital against first four persons i.e.

Rajesh Dubey, Ambuj, Raghvendra and Suman. In the second

part of incident, which lead to the death of two persons, the

remaining six persons including applicant are shown as the

accused persons. The role of inflicting injury by sharp edge

weapon i.e. Fawada is attributed to one Satyanand. So far as the

other persons ar