Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15366 of 2010 Petitioner :- Pradeep Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,B.P. Mishra Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Vashistha Nath Pandey Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for
the complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the
record.
The present criminal misc. bail application has been filed
with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case
Crime No.194 of 2010, under Sections 307, 504 IPC, P.S.
Lalganj, District Basti.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in fact on
the basis of false allegation the entire family was implicated
in the present case. The alleged incident took place on
14.3.2010, however, first information report was lodged on
21.3.2010 on the basis of concocted story. He further
submitted that no one has seen the incident. There is
contradiction in the injury report of Basti hospital and
Lucknow hospital. There was no supplementary report. It
appears that there was no internal damage and injuries were
simple in nature. In the present case, the applicant is in jail
since 29.3.2010.
The aforesaid prayer for bail was opposed by learned
counsel for the complainant as well as by learned AGA on
the ground that there is clear allegation regarding firing by
the applicant and co-accused. In fact there was serious
injuries. He was firstly taken to hospital at Basti, and he was
referred to medical hospital Gorakhpur. Thereafter, he was
referred to medical hospital Lucknow. When there was
improvement then he came and lodged the FIR. The injuries
were serious in nature. He was under treatment for several
days. According to report by the doctor at Lucknow, there
were 5 fire-arm injuries on the back of chest, on face and on
leg. Hence applicant is not entitled for bail.
In view of aforesaid facts, without expressing any opinion on
merit, it is not a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the application
for bail is rejected.
However, the trial court is expected to conclude the trial as
expeditiously as possible without unreasonable delay and
unnecessary adjournment.
Order Date :- 7.7.2010
Pramod