Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1840 of 2009 Petitioner :- Yogendra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Saghir Ahmad,Santosh Kumar Misra Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh,J.
Hon’ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari,J.
Heard Sri Sagir Ahmad, learned Advocate who appeared to
press bail application moved on behalf of Yogendra and
learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
Applicant above named was prosecuted for the offence
punishable under Sections so mentioned in the judgment
and he is to serve out the sentence so provided.
Submission is that although this is a case in which applicant
is the sole accused and the deceased has received single
gun shot injury but on the facts it can be established that
F.I.R. is anti time. It is further submitted that the manner in
which the fire is said to have hit the deceased is also not
probable which is clear from the description so given by the
Doctor in his statement.
It is submitted that otherwise also the theory of prosecution
that deceased was taken on Jugar and the informant went to
the police station then they came to the spot and then
informant went to the hospital and on the way Jugar was
standing and he took the deceased with him, all appears to
be colourful version and thus as appellant was not on bail
during trial and he is already detained since long, is entitled
to be released on bail.
Learned Additional Government Advocate to oppose the
aforesaid submits that it is a case where appellant being
sole accused, the role of fire is given to him and deceased
has received fire arm injury.
Submission is that deceased gave his statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he died next day and thus the
notice of minor variation/contradiction, if any, as argued in
respect to the fact that informant went to the police station,
then came on the spot and then took the deceased on Jugar
to the hospital and the standing/sitting position of the
deceased while fire hit, can be matter of detail argument at
the time of hearing of appeal but on these factors appellant
may not be entitled to be released on bail.
There is no dispute about the fact that appellant is the sole
person who is said to be responsible with the murder of the
deceased. Informant is the eye witness. Claim is that he
went to the police station and then he came on the spot and
it is thereafter statement of the deceased was taken and
then he was taken to the hospital.
Learned Trial Judge considered/referred the aspect which
has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant in
detail in the judgment and reasons were given not to agree
with the same.
Appellant was not granted bail during trial.
On the fact, this court is not satisfied that it is a fit case
where appellant is entitled to be released on bail.
Bail application moved is therefore rejected.
However, it is observed that office is to get the paper book
ready so as to enable him to list the appeal for hearing in the
month of May, 2010.
Order Date :- 29.1.2010
M.A.A.
