Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1002 of 2010 Petitioner :- Om Prakash @ Babloo Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- S. Rashid Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
Admit.
The lower court record has been received.
Heard Mr. S. Rashid, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the
State, and Mr. P. K. Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, on the matter
of bail to the appellant and perused the record.
It has been argued by Mr. Rashid that it was a night incident and there could
be no possibility of identifying the assailant. He further argued that the
appellant is not named in the FIR.
So far as the absence of the name of the appellant in the FIR is concerned, it is
not material because the FIR was not lodged by the injured himself.
So far as this argument is concerned that the appellant could not be identified,
in that regard it is pertinent to mention that the appellant and the injured went
together for a long distance and thus, there could be no mistake in identifying
the appellant by the injured. The injured had stated that he was going with the
appellant, who had committed the occurrence. The injury was so serious that
it was operated in the hospital, otherwise it could have been fatal to life.
Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to admit the appellant to bail.
The bail prayer is refused.
The office is directed to prepare the paper books and list this appeal for
hearing immediately after preparation of the paper books.
Order Date :- 2.4.2010
Pcl