PRAMODH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) Prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the applicant Pramodh Kumar Singh involved in case crime no. 15 of 2013 under sections 307, 302, 504 I.P.C. and Section 30 Arms Act, P.S. Jaithera, District Etah.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. In the F.I.R. it is alleged that while the complainant and other family members were having their food, the applicant along with other accused in a state of intoxication came to the house of the complainant and opened fire upon the complainant and his family member. One fire hit Rajnesh @ Tillu s/o Jogender Singh. No specific role has been assigned in the F.I.R. to the applicant. Even in the statement of the complainant, he simply supported the F.I.R. and has not attributed any specific role to the applicant. Even in the statement of the eyewitness no specific role is attributed to the applicant. Further in the statement of the injured under section 161 Cr.P.C., the injured has also not specified the role of the applicant of causing injury. There was only general allegation of firing upon the complainant and the injured. Learned counsel further submitted that although there was a statement of injured recorded by learned Additional City Magistrate on 14.01.2013 in which the injured has named the applicant as the person who opened fire upon him which caused injury on his neck. Learned counsel further submitted that the injured was medically examined and there was only a wound of injury on the left side of neck and even the applicant was admitted in the hospital. Later on he was released from hospital and went to his town at Etah and after ten days his condition was deteriorated and he died. Learned counsel further submitted that even as per the allegation and the statement and the medical evidence, the offence does not travel beyond section 304 Part II I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 04.02.2013. Learned counsel further submitted that at the time of hearing of the bail application of co-accused Gajendra before the Sessions Judge, the complainant filed an affidavit alleging that the injury caused to the injured Rajnesh was caused by the accused Gajendra. The applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.