Jagdish Prasad @ Pujari vs State Of U.P. on 25 January, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Jagdish Prasad @ Pujari vs State Of U.P. on 25 January, 2010
Court No. - 46

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7132 of 2009

Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad @ Pujari
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- Manvendra Singh
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh,J.

Hon’ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari,J.

Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned Advocate who
appeared to press the bail application of Jagdish who is
convicted for an offence punishable under Section so
mentioned in the judgment and he is to serve out the
sentence so provided and learned A.G.A.

Submission is that although in the F.I.R. and otherwise some
motive is suggested to the applicant but that is totally
misconceived and this is admitted version that from
beginning the applicant was separate and he was living
separately with his all means and there was no issue for
which the offence can be said to have been committed.

It is further submitted that the applicant was not named in
the first information report and in the statement of the
informant and otherwise truth can be there to the effect that
Kulbir Singh, the co-accused fired at the deceased and this
is a case of single shot on the body of the deceased and
thus the applicant has not committed any offence and due to
suspicion his name has been mentioned.

Submission is that if PW-2 is said to be present on the spot
and she woke up on account of some talks between the
accused and in the bulb light she saw both the accused then
there was no reason not to name the applicant in the report
and after several days in the statement his name has to
come.

Submission is that main accused in view of the role so
assigned can be attributed to Kulbir Singh and thus the
applicant who was on bail during trial having not misused the
bail is entitled for bail.

Learned Government side submits that although the
applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and it is a case of
single shot and two accused are there even if there is some
shortcomings in the evidence fixing specific role to the one
of the accused as trial court believed the version and
convicted, this is not fit case for bail.

After hearing argument and on notice of the findings so
given, this is clear that the applicant was not named in the
F.I.R. and his name came to the light after several days after
although PW-2 claims to have seen him on the spot.

This is a case of single shot and in the statement of PW-1 at
one place it has come that fire of Kulbir Singh hit the
deceased and thus there being conflicting/vague evidence in
this respect as main role is said to be of Kulbir Singh as
argued by the counsel for the applicant also, for present
purpose this Court can take a lenient view so far the
applicant is concerned.

Appellant was on bail and he has not misused the same.

Appeal is not so old and thus long time is to be taken in its
hearing.

Let the appellant Jagdish Prasad son of late Ramnarayan
Shukla be enlarged on bail in S.T. No. 366 of 2002 (State
Vs. Kulveer and another) on his furnishing a personal bond
and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the court concerned. Realisation of fine to the extent of
50% shall remain stayed. Balance amount of fine shall be
deposited forthwith. The release order shall be sent after
deposit of the balance amount of fine.

Order Date :- 25.1.2010
Sachdeva

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *