Ranjeet Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Court No. - 16

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4826 of 2020

Applicant :- Ranjeet Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Yogesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Mishra

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Kuldeep Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant and the learned A.G.A.

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Ranjeet Singh, Om Prakash Singh @ Om Singh, Sarju Pandey, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 191 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 504, 506 and 34 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Parasrampur, District Basti.

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the first informant, Vashistha Yadav is not an eye witness of the incident. He argues that Sahabdeen son of the first informant is alleged to have received injuries and died. As per the GD note / Annexure- 2 even the first informant did not accompany the injured to the police station while he was in a precarious injured condition from where he was forwarded for medical examination. He draws the attention of the Court to the medical examination report of Sahabdeen / Annexure- 4 and proceeds to place the injuries to state that the injuries as noted do not anywhere show that there was any report of head injury on the body of the deceased. In continuation of the said argument he places the post mortem report in which the cause of death as noted by the doctor is Ante Mortem Head injury. An alleged dying declaration is said to have been recorded by Constable Clerk, Ravindra Kumar before the Investigation Officer which is said to have copied in a compact disk, sealed and enclosed with the case diary. The contents of the same have been transcribed in the case diary which is Annexure- 12 to the affidavit in which it is stated that even the presence of the first informant is not spoken of. Further reliance has been placed to the affidavits of Jawahar Lal and Vishal Mishra / Annexure- 10 & 11 respectively and the argument on the said documents is done that the presence of the first informant is stated there. The said affidavit is an after thought filed after a considerable delay.