VIJAY BAHADUR PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above two appeals are connected to each other as they arise out of the same judgment and order and therefore, the bail prayers made therein have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties on the bail prayer and perused the record. It has been submitted from the side of the appellants that the FIR is delayed without any plausible explanation for the same as it was lodged on 3.11.2001 at 9.40 a.m. it has further been contended that the hospitalization of the injured (now deceased) was done on 4.11.2001 at about 1.00 a.m. and it has not been explained as to where the injured was kept before that. It has also been submitted that the doctor who conducted the post mortem has mentioned in his report regarding 5 wounds but these wounds do not correspond to the injuries caused by the assailants. It has further been submitted that there is no link evidence to corroborate that the deceased and the complainant had actually gone to see the dance which was just 50 yards away from the place of incident. It has been further argued from the side of the appellant Brij Bhushan Pal that he was juvenile on the date of the incident and this fact was not considered by the learned lower Court. It has also been submitted from the side of the appellant that his role is confined to catching hold of the deceased.

(3.) IT has been submitted that from the perusal of the statement of PW-4, Dr.R.P.Verma it is evident that he had examined the injured (now deceased) on 3.11.2001 at about 2.05 a.m. and therefore, the argument advanced from the side of the appellant on this point is falsified. It has further been submitted that immediately after the incident the injured was rushed to the hospital and thereafter he was referred to Lucknow and it was the prime duty of the complainant to save the life of the injured and after getting him admitted in the hospital he went to the police station and lodged the FIR. In this background it has been further argued that the FIR is not delayed. It has also been stated from the side of the complainant that no specific plea of enmity has been taken justifying false implication of the appellants.? It has further been argued that had the appellant Brij Bhushan Pal not caught hold of the deceased the deceased would have an opportunity to run away and save his life. It has also been submitted that the plea of juvenility has been taken for the first time before this Court and it was not taken before the learned lower Courts. It has further been submitted that? till this time the factum of juvenility is not established and therefore no benefit of this plea can be given to the appellant Brij Bhushan Pal.