Dismissed

Brijesh Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2024BAIL/1213/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Third bail application under Sections 307, 34 IPC for shooting an injured person. Court held that though the injured witness turned hostile in cross-examination, he had supported the prosecution in examination-in-chief; considering gravity of offence and complicity, bail was rejected and the trial court directed to conclude trial within two months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Brijesh Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:51117

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1213 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Brijesh Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sukh Deo Singh,Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankit Singh,Himanshu Suryavanshi

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Anshuman Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

¶7

This is the third bail application. The first and second bail applications of the applicant bearing Bail Nos563 of 2023 and 7842 of 2023 were dismissed by this court vide orders dated 16.01.2023 & 27.06.2023 respectively.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accusedapplicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.119 of 2022, under Sections 307, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Munshiganj, District Amethi.

¶9

It is alleged in the prosecution case that applicant along with two co-accused persons have fired shot upon the injured who sustain injury at his abdomen. A country made pistol has been recovered from the pointing out of the applicant.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is in jail since 04.07.2022 however, he has no criminal antecedent. The injured witness has been examined before the trial court who during cross-examination has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. There is no chance of tampering the evidence.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the

¶12

complainant have opposed the bail prayer. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that injured during his examination in chief has supported the prosecution case therefore, the bail application is liable to be rejected. He submits that there are only five witnesses of the prosecution out of which two have been examined, no fact witness remains to be examined only formal witnesses are left which are just three witnesses therefore, looking to the complicity of the applicant in the heinous nature of crime it would be appropriate to direct the trial court to expedite the trial.

¶13

Perused the record.

¶14

On due consideration to the injury report of the injured, statement of the injured, the gravity of the offence as well as the complicity of the applicant in the case and the submission advanced by the learned A.G.A. as well as complainant, the victim though has supported the prosecution case during examination in chief he may have been won over during crossexamination, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

¶15

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

Office is directed to send copy of this order to the learned trial court forthwith.

¶17

Order Date :- 26.7.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Brijesh Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Brijesh Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Babadin Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajay Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Pravesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shakil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Bhupendra Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rakesh Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.