Court No. 20
Crl Misc Case No. 7727 (B) of 2009
Shiv Bahadur Chauhan Applicant
Vs
State of U.P. Opp. Party
Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan, J.
Learned counsel for the complainant files counter affidavit, which is
taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State
and learned counsel for the complainant.
The accused-applicant Shiv Bahadur Chauhan is involved and
detained in Case Crime No. 848 of 2007, under Sections 323, 504, 506,
302/34 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster Act, from Police Station
Gosaiganj, District Sultanpur.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that on the
exhortation of accused Bhim Bhadur, Man Singh and Mata Prasad alias
Karia, accused applicant Shiv Bahadur opened fire from the licensee gun of
his father which caused injuries to Ramesh, brother of complainant Subhash
Chandra Verma, later on Ramesh succumbed to his injuries before he was
admitted to hospital.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the licensee gun of
father of accused was recovered by the Investigating Officer which was sent
to Ballistic Expert for examination. The report of Ballistic Expert shows
that no cartridge was fired from the gun. It appears that the deceased had
not died on account of fire opened by the accused Shiv Bahadur from his
father’s licensee gun. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends
that there was mob at the time of occurrence. It appears that someone had
fired which had caused injuries to the deceased. All the co-accused have
already been ordered to be released on bail. Therefore, present accused
applicant also deserves to be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the complainant
opposed the bail application and argued that this is a case of broad day light
occurrence. Therefore, there could no be mistake in identifying the accused.
As per post-mortem examination report of the deceased, he had sustained
gun shot injuries. The prosecution witnesses have given eye account of the
occurrence. The applicant is the main accused who had opened fire on the
deceased which resulted in his death. Keeping in view the nature of offence,
the accused applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.
Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant,
learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant.
The occurrence is alleged to have taken place during broad day light.
The prosecution witnesses have given eye account of the occurrence. The
applicant is the main accused, who is said to be opened fire on the
deceased. As per post-morten examination report of the deceased, it appears
that he had sustained gun shot injuries which resulted in his death.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as
nature of offence, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The application for bail is, therefore, rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial pending
against the accused expeditiously.
13.01.2010
Renu/-