' Court No. - 8 Case :- BAIL No. - 293 of 2010 Petitioner :- Rajesh Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Pankaj Kumar Srivastava,Abha Tripathi,Haushila Prasad,Shabe Roshan Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional
Government Advocate and perused the F.I.R., injury report and
other relevant papers on the record.
It is alleged in the F.I.R. that accused-applicant fired at Kallu, who
received no injury. Subsequently, co-accused Dileep also fired at
Kallu but again no injury was caused to Kallu. It is further alleged
that the accused-applicant snatched ‘Katta’ of co-accused Dileep
and assaulted Kallu by butt on his head. Learned counsel for the
applicant submits that the story as alleged in the F.I.R. is highly
doubtful because it is specifically alleged in the F.I.R. that the first
fire was shot by the accused applicant, as such, there was no
need of snatching ‘Katta’ of co-accused Dileep and then hit by its
butt on the head of injured Kallu. As alleged, the accused-
applicant had fired by his fire arm, as such, there was no need of
snatching ‘Katta’ from hands of co-accused Dileep. The allegation,
as made, makes prosecution case doubtful. It is further submitted
by learned counsel for the applicant that the doctor who examined
injured Kallu has opined “Patient Kallu Age/Sex 28/M. Provisional
Diagnosis Fire arm injury at Lt.side occipital region alt. cons. is
being referred to you for favour of examination and management”.
This fire arm injury also makes the case highly doubtful because it
is the specific case of prosecution that Kallu escaped from
receiving fire arm injury.
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and without
making any observations on the merits of the case, I direct that the
applicant be released on bail in case Crime No.893/2009 u/s
307/323/504/506 IPC & 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act P.S
Kotwali Nagar District Barabanki on his filing a personal bond and
two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
Order Date :- 18.1.2010