Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.

Allahabad High Court
Satya Veer vs State Of U.P. on 29 January, 2010

     Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29420 of 2009
               Satya Veer Vs. State of U.P.
Hon. Ravindra Singh, J.

Heard Sri Jai Shanker Audichya and Sri J.P.S. Jadaun,
learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of
U.P., Sri A. Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and
perused the record.

This bail application has been moved by the applicant Satya
Veer with a prayer that they may be released on bail in case crime
No. 211 of 2009 under sections 302, 392, 411, 120-B IPC, P.S.
Akrabad, District Aligarh.

The facts, in brief, of this case are that the FIR of this case
has been lodged by Marari Lal on 26.4.2009 at 10.10 P.M. in
respect of the incident which had occurred on 26.4.2009 at about
7.30 P.M. The distance of the police station was about 14
kilometres from the alleged place of occurrence. The applicant is
named in the FIR, It is alleged that the deceased Dwarika Prasad
was a dealer for a fair price shop, he had gone to Aligarh, at the
time of the alleged occurrence he was returning to his village. The
applicant who was Pradhan of the village along with his associates
committed the murder of the deceased on the way. The alleged
incident was witnesses by Siya Ram Singh and Jai Veer Singh,
about one week prior the alleged incident the threats was
extended by the applicant to the deceased. The deceased was
brought to the hospital where he was declared dead. According to
the post mortem examination report the deceased had sustained
one fire arm wound of entry on the left side chest. The shot
discharged by the applicant had hit the deceased.

It is contented by learned counsel for the applicant that the
presence of witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence was
highly doubtful. According to the FIR itself, the first informant is
not eye witness, the FIR was lodged only on the basis of the

doubt and suspicion and on account of the village partibandi. The
witnesses are chance witnesses, there is no independent witness
of the locality to support the prosecution story. The first I.O. of
this case came to the conclusion that applicant was falsely
implicated but the second I.O. without having any other credible
evidence, chargesheet has been submitted against the applicant.
The participation of the applicant in the commission of the alleged
offence is highly doubtful and nothing incriminating has been
recovered from the possession of the applicant or at his pointing
out. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent.

In reply of the above contention it is submitted by learned
A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that the alleged
incident has been witnessed by the persons namely Jaiveer Singh
and others, according to the statement of Jaiveer Singh and Siya
Ram the shot discharged by the applicant hit the deceased. The
prosecution story is corroborated by the medical evidence.
Because according to the post mortem examination report the
deceased has sustained gun shot wound of entry. The applicant
was having strong motive to commit the alleged offence. In case
the applicant is released on bail, he may temper with the

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the
applicant, learned A.G.A. learned counsel for the complainant and
from the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case
the applicant is named in the FIR, the allegation against him is
that the shot discharge by him hit the deceased. The FIR has been
promptly lodged, there is no good ground for releasing the
applicant on bail, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.


Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.168 seconds.