Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupendra v. State of U.P.

Court No. - 79

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40124 of 2019

Applicant :- Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Dubey

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate filed parcha on behalf of applicant and has also filed supplementary affidavit, which are taken on record.

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for first informant, learned AGA for State and perused the record.

This is second bail application, after rejection first bail application on merits vide order dated 4.12.2018, copy filed at Annexure No.1.

Learned counsel for applicant contended that at the time of disposal of first bail application, applicant could not put the facts before the Court, which are already on record; that according to F.I.R., first informant was taken to hospital by police, but the medical examination report of first informant shows that he was medically examined on next day at District Hospital Firozabad, where he was carried by his brother-in-law and not the police; that in the medical examination report of first informant, injuries have been opined about one and half day old, which also do not co-relate with the incident in question; that apart from it, typed report was submitted at the police station, which also creates doubt on prosecution story, because the injured person is not supposed to type before submitting it to police; that entire prosecution story is false and is not supported by evidence on record; that statements of first informant and witness Kaushal Kumar have been recorded during trial as P.W.1 and P.W.2 which are full of contradictions; that the empty cartridges and missed cartridges were recovered from the spot as well as the firearm allegedly recovered from applicant were sent to ballastic expert, but the prosecution has not assigned any reason for not sending the bullet, which was recovered from the body of deceased; that the ballastic expert report is negative, as it states that the cartridges recovered from the spot, were not found to have been fired from the firearm recovered from applicant; that co-accused have not been charge