The court rejected a bail application under Section 302, 307 IPC and Arms Acts. The prosecution eye-witnesses stated the accused exhorted others to kill the victim. The court distinguished the accused's role from a co-accused on bail and directed swift trial closure.
Bail application rejected; trial directed to be concluded within four months.
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. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41111 of 2018
Applicant :- Udai Hind@Kariya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Janardan Yadav,Ranjeet Yadav,Satyawan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant(s), learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accusedapplicant(s) Udai Hind @ Kariya,who is involved in Case Crime No.274 of 2017 under Sections 302,307,504,506,34 I.P.C. and under section 4/25 Arms Act P.S.-Mehanagar, District-Azamgarh.
In brief the F.I.R version is that the son of the informant Om Narain is a labour in Delhi. On 15.11.2017 at 5:30 of evening the Bike of son of Lalta Carpenter and Mukesh was collided, his grandson Ravi @ Ganja rushed to the son of Carpenter for treatment and thereafter brought him back to his house and when he was coming back near the Government building Udai Hind @ Karia, Mukesh, Nand Lal, Pankaj Kumar assaulted with knife to his grandson Ravi @ Ganja. On hearing some noise, his another grandson Mahesh also attracted there and came to rescue Ravi. The accused persons also assaulted Mahesh with knife. Ravi @ Ganja, Mukesh and Vikash of the village also sustained injuries in this occurrence. The persons of the village attracted there and saw the occurrence. Thereafter, all the injured persons rushed to the hospital, Azamgarh. Ravi @ Ganja was referred for Varanasi and amid the way Ravi scummed to injuries. The treatment of Vikash and Mahesh was going on. On this written information the Case Crime No.274 of 2017 under Sections 302,307,504,506,34 I.P.C. and under section 4/25 Arms Act was registered against Udai Hind @ Karia, Mukesh,Nand Lal and Pankaj.
During investigation the knife used in the occurrence was also recovered and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act was also enhanced.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no direct or circumstantial evidence in this case against the applicant. He has no previous conviction or criminal antecedent and the applicant has given an undertaking that he will not tamper the evidence.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail application.
As per the allegations of the F.I.R. the prosecution case is based on the direct evidence. The eye-witness of the occurrence Mahesh and Vikash both are injured. Ravi @ Ganja died due to sustaining injuries while he was on the way to the hospital. In postmortem report which is annexure-2 of the affidavit the cause of death is haemorrhage and shock as a result of Ante -Mortem injuries. The postmortem report supports the ocular evidence.
The injured eye-witness Mahesh Chauhan in his statement stated that Mukesh and Udai Hind @ Karia both exhorted Pankaj and Nand Lal to kill Ravi @ Ganja. Mukesh assaulted Ravi @ Ganja with his knife. Udai Hind assaulted with his knife to the injured Mahesh Chauhan and Vikash Saroj. The injured eye-witness Vikash Saroj also gives the same kind of statement.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the co-accused Pankaj Kumar has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 9.4.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12746 of 2018 by one of the Bench of this Court and his role is identical.
In view of the statement of the injured eye-witness the role of the present applicant is altogether different from that of Pankaj.Therefore, it is a fit case for rejection of bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
The trial court is directed to conclude the trail expeditiously preferably within a period of four months keeping in view of the provision of section 309 Cr.P.C.
2 issues framed by the court
whether bail should be granted to the applicant accused of murder under Sections 302, 307 IPC allegedly falsely implicated
whether the role of the present applicant is identical to that of a co-accused already on bail
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Udai Hind @ Kariya
Subhash Chand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
