Court No. - 18 Case :- BAIL No. - 4975 of 2010 Petitioner :- Kamlesh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Bireshwar Nath Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble S.N.H. Zaidi,J.
Counter affidavit on behalf of the State and Vakalatnama on behalf of the
complainant filed in Court, are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Laxman Singh for the
complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that, as per report of
the incident, the applicant and four named persons, who were armed with fire
arms, fired upon the deceased, as a consequence of which he died, but his
postmortem report reveals only two fire arm wounds of entry and it is not
ascertainable as to who are the authors of those injuries. Further submission
is that as the applicant’s father Sukh Raj Singh and co-accused Anand Singh’s
father Bhagwati Singh are contesting a long drawn civil litigation since 1989
which is presently pending before the High Court, therefore, it is improbable
that the applicant would have joined hands with Anand Singh in any criminal
incident.
It has been pointed out that besides this case and a case of section 325 I.P.C.
of the year 1993, the applicant has no criminal antecedents.
Learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for complainant have opposed the
bail and the submission of the complainant’s counsel is that both the applicant
and co-accused Anand Singh were inimical to the deceased, therefore, it is
possible that the applicant and Anand Singh would have joined hands in
eliminating the deceased. It is also contended that as per postmortem report
25 pellets, were recovered from the dead body of the deceased, but ante
mortem injury no. 1, which appears to have been caused by a 12 Bore fire
arm suggests that it was not caused by a single shot and appears to be a result
of two shots.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties’ counsel and the above
circumstances of the case and the points pertaining to the nature of
accusation, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering the
witnesses, prima facie satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and
genuineness of the prosecution case and without commenting upon the merits
of the case, the applicant appears entitled to bail.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
Let applicant Kamlesh Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 659 of 2009,
under sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Lambhua,
District-Sultanpur, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and
furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned.
Order Date :- 7.7.2010
Rizvi