JAGGU @ LALITT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant was falsely implicated in the present case. It appears that looting incident took place and subsequently due to enmity the applicant was falsely implicated along with the co-accused. The prayer for co-accused Chhotey has already been allowed and the applicant, who is in jail since 4.1.2008, is entitled for bail.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. submitted that the specific role has been assigned to the applicant, who assaulted with axe on the head of the deceased and subsequently she was dragged inside the room and the applicant and co-accused assaulted her. According to statement of Gudia she had relation with accused applicant. There was pressure to go along with the applicant which was refused on the date of the incident dated 30.12.2007. The applicant came along with the co-accused. He was putting pressure upon Gudia to go along with him which was refused and even objection was raised by the deceased Hiria, the mother of the informant. The applicant assaulted with axe. Thereafter she was assaulted by all the co-accused. The recovery of axe was from the applicant, even bag of the applicant was found at the place of the incident. The statement of the witnesses of fact has already been recorded. The trial is going to be concluded in near future, hence the applicant is not entitled for bail.