RAI MUNNA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application on behalf of Stai Munna Singh who is in custody in respect of Case Crime No. 795 of J 990 under sections 147/148/149/302/34 IPC pertaining to Police Station Kotwali Jaunpur.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that at about 330 P.M. on 17-5-1989, the applicant Rai Munna Singh alongwith two others fired upon Palakdhari. Palafcdhari received injuries and he lodged a first information report on 17-5-1989 at about 4.15 P.M. at P. S. Baksha and a case was registered at Crime No. 141 of 1989. Palakdhari was medically examined at about 5.10 P.M. in the district Hospital, Jaunpur on 17-5-1989 and a fire arm wound was found on his body. He was admitted in the district Hospital for the treatment. It appears that the applicant was granted bail in this case Crime No. 141 of 1989. THE case of the prosecution further is that on 8-8- 1990, Palakdhari had come to the court in connection with a case. At about 4. 00 P.M., he went to Budlapur Padav to catch the Bus. At about 430 P.M., the applicant Rai Munna Singh sitting on a Motor Cycle and some other co- accused sitting on Scooter and Maruti Car came there. THE applicant Rai Munna Singh, co-accused Vinod Singh and Virendra Pratap Singh sorrounded the deceased Palakdhari and instigated Harendra Pratap Singh to kill him. THEreafter, Harendra Pratap Singh fired twice from his Revolver causing injuries to Palakdhari, who died on the spot. Tne First Information Report was lodged by Dharmendra Pratap Singh at 530 P.M. at P. S. Kotwali district iaunpur and a case was registered under Crime No. 795 of 1990.

(3.) THE applicant was granted bail in case Crime No. 141 of 1989 under section 307 IPC. After he was granted bail, he has committed the present crime. THE applicant has thus mis-used the privilege of bail granted to him. Secondly, Palakdhari injured was the most important prosecution witness in case Crime No. 141 of 1989. By committing the murder of Palakdhari, the applicant has succeeded in eliminating the most important prosecution witness. Thus, the applicant has tampered with the prosecution evidence and has tampered with the progress of a fair trial. Looking to the conduct of the applicant, the possibility cannot be ruled out that in case he is released on bail in the present case he may try to eliminate some other prosecution witnesses. THE applicant is, therefore, not entitled to the discretion of being released on bail.