Court No. - 55 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27139 of 2016
Applicant :- Rajendra Pandit
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamta Prasad Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Keshari Nandan Singh
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed by the counsel for the parties today in the Court, are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the F.I.R. regarding the murder of Rameshwar on 03.01.2016 at about 4:45 p.m. on account of old enmity of election; that as per averments made in F.I.R., the applicant and his associates with common object attacked on the deceased and the fire made by applicant, hit deceased Rameshwar in his head resulting in his death on the spot and the brother of first informant Harish Chandra sustained injuries at the hand of co-accused Akhilesh Lodhi and others; that it was also stated in the F.I.R. that the marshal vehicle on which the accused persons had arrived was put to fire by themselves; that it is pertinent to mention that as per postmortem report of the deceased Rameshwar, he sustained antemortem gun shot injury, apart from which three postmortem burn injuries have also been mentioned in the postmortem report, of which no explanation has been given by the prosecution; that deceased Rameshwar was a history sheeter and there were as many as 19 criminal cases against him mentioned in Annexure-11; that the recovery of fire arm is alleged to have been made from applicant but it is not alleged to have been sent to ballistic expert; that though there are allegations of Harish Chandra sustaining injuries in the incident in question at the hands of co-accused Surendra Pandit and Akhilesh, the medical reports of Harish Chandra do not support the prosecution case; that the death of Rameshwar, a person of criminal antecedent appears to have been committed by some unknown persons and since the real culprit is not known, the applicant has been falsely implicated on account of enmity; that the applicant has explained his criminal history in para 5 of the rejoinder affidavit; that the investigation has not been done fairly and there is no possibility of conviction of applicant; that the applicant undertakes that he will not make misuse of the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 05.01.2016. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that it is absolutely wrong to say that the deceased was hard core criminal; that the details of criminal cases mentioned at Annexure-11, itself speaks that he was implicated in several petty offences under section 110-G Cr.P.C. etc. and on account of the same, he was also falsely implicated in certain other criminal cases; that the deceased is not alleged to have been held guilty for any of the offences and was on bail in the cases pending against him, though the cases have been mentioned in annexure-11, were more than five years old at the time of incident and all cases are very old pertaining from the year 1997 to Neutral Citation No. - 2017:AHC:67874
1
2012 except two NCRs. of the year 2015; that the postmortem report specifically states that the death of deceased was caused due to antemortem gun shot injury and the applicant has been assigned with the role of causing fatal injury in the promptly lodged F.I.R. in which it has been specifically stated that the injured Harish Chandra has been sent to hospital and dead body of Rameshwar is lying on the spot; that in the circumstances, if any, postmortem any injuries were caused to the deceased by the culprits, the first informant is not supposed to explain the postmortem injuries, which are not cause of death; that the accused persons committed a broad day murder with fire arms and the first informant may not be supposed to remain standing there; that the accused persons, who put their marshal vehicle on fire may also have caused postmortem burn injury to the deceased in brutal manner and cannot take any benefit of postmortem injuries; that the charge sheet has been submitted and charges have been framed against the accused persons; that the trial is in progress and is likely to be decided at an early stage; that if the applicant is released on bail, he will make misuse the liberty of bail and shall delay in disposal of the sessions trial.
Upon hearing 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 Rajendra Pandit in case Crime No. 02 of 2016 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Majhgawan, District Hamirpur is rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 12.5.2017 Sharad/-
2