ATMARAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. The Appellant had reported to the Chauki-in- charge, Sheikpura Kadi, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, Saharanpur, U.P. that on 13/14.3.2011 Respondent no.2, namely, Kunwar Singh and other co- accused had cut the ridge of his field on 12.3.2011 which resulted in an altercation between them at 7.00 a.m. on 13.3.2011. Five other persons, namely, Rafal Singh, Issam Singh, Shahspal, Hanish @ Hanif @ Awanish and Pillu @ Ravindra were already present at the site; Kunwar Singh and Rafal Singh were armed with Balkati and the others with lathis. The six persons allegedly attacked the Appellant, his sons, namely, Sanjay and Baliram and his grandson Udaiveer all of whom suffered serious injuries. All of them stand charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 302 I.P.C. Sanjay (deceased) suffered the following injuries:

(2.) On the other hand, the Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, had prior thereto noted that Kunwar Singh had been named in the FIR, along with a specific role. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was obviously influenced by the fact that injuries on Sanjay (deceased) were on vital part of the body, i.e., the head; that on the indication of Kunwar Singh, the Balkati was recovered from a sugarcane field and that the unrebutted case is that Kunwar Singh was involved in a number of cases including four shown pending in the Gang Chart including one for murder and another for rape. In the view of the Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, these were sufficient reasons to decline bail as transpires from his Order dated 20.5.2011.

(3.) The learned Additional Govt. Advocate had submitted to the High Court, and the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State of U.P. has similarly pressed before us, that the Applicant-Respondent no.2 was armed with the reaping hook (Balkati) and the deceased had sustained Injury no.2 allegedly by this weapon. Moreover Respondent no.2 is involved in several criminal cases and that if he is released on bail, he is likely to tamper with evidence. Learned Counsel for Respondent no.2 has contended that all the cases in which Respondent no.2 has been named, he has been acquitted in two and has been released on bail in the third. The High Court was impressed with the view that the occurrence has taken place in a sudden quarrel and, therefore, there was no "pre- intention" or pre-meditation; that it has not been specified as to whose blow caused the incised wound being Injury no.2; that it was difficult to decide which party was the aggressor; that Respondent no.2, the Applicant before the High Court, was in jail since 25.3.2011. It was in these premises that Kunwar Singh had been granted bail on terms in the impugned Order dated 5.9.2011.