Criminal bail applicant argued false implication, plantation of weapon, and speculative nature of FIR. Court, weighing severity and complicity, rejected bail without commenting on merits of charges.
Bail application rejected; applicant is not a fit case for bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2375 of 2019
Applicant :- Kalu Sonkar Alias Shitendra Sonkar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla learned counsel for the applicant and Shri A.C. Srivastava learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated in F.I.R; that prosecution case as per F.I.R is that on 16.2.2018 there was some marriage related ceremony at the house of first informant Bablu Bhartiya during which some altercation did take place between his brother Rahul Bhartiya and accused persons and was opposed by Rahul Bhartiya at about 11.30 p.m. upon exhortation by accused persons applicant fired at Rahul Bhartiya who fell on the ground and was taken to hospital where he succumbed to firearm injury on next day i.e., 18.2.2018; that entire prosecution story is false and incorrect; that deceased was a person of criminal antecedents; that statements of first informant and Smt. Renu, Smt. Pappi and Km. Maya sisters of deceased and Guddu brother-inlaw of deceased recorded after inordinate delay narrating incident are false and self-contradictory; that postmortem report shows that death of deceased was caused due to firearm head injury; that from the place of occurrence, an empty cartridge was recovered and recovery of unauthorized firearm from applicant has been falsely planted; that applicant had no motive to cause death of deceased; that deceased appears to have sustained gun shot injury during harsh firing or by firing at the hands of unknown persons; that applicant is in custody since 17.02.2018.
Per contra, learned A.G.A,. and learned counsel for first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that applicant is main culprit
amongst the four accused persons in the promptly lodged F.I.R. within 4 hours of incident in which role of firing has been assigned to applicant and none else; that false implication of deceased in few cases does not authorize any person to cause his death; that it is wrong to say that deceased sustained gun shot injury during harsh firing or by firing at the hands of some other person; that applicant if released on bail he will misuse liberty of bail and will obstruct fair disposal of trial.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The bail application of applicant Kalu Sonkar Alias Shitendra Sonkar in Case Crime No.48 of 2018, under Sections 302, 504 and 506 I.P.C. P.S. Khuldabad, District Allahabad is rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 21.1.2019 VS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is a fit case for bail in the present circumstances
Whether the severity of punishment and complicity justify rejection of bail
Kalu Sonkar Alias Shitendra Sonkar
State Of U.P.
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
