MOLHU VERMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counter affidavit filed today by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

(2.) This bail application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 02 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 302, 452, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Gaur, District Basti.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and have drawn the attention of the Court to the injury reports of five injured persons other than the deceased, who have also received injuries as a result of the assault made on the them in this case. It was further pointed out that multiple number of injured persons is proof of the fact that it was a concerted attack made by all accused on them with premeditated plan in furtherance of their common intention and object and there is hardly any ground to substantiate the plea that there was no common intention amongst the accused persons to commit the crime in question. Further submission is that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the applicant was having any different intention than the one which the other accused persons were having. The applicant was armed with dangerous sharp edged weapon who had come on the spot along with other co-accused who were also variously armed having sharp edged as well as blunt weapons. The intercepting witnesses including the women who tried to save the deceased were also not spared. After committing the incident all the accused persons including the applicant left the spot together. The submission is that there is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant either desisted the other co-accused from doing what they did or that he did any such thing which may indicate that he had any other intention than to eliminate the deceased. It was also submitted that it is not always necessary that the number of the injuries received by the deceased should always correspond to the number of assailants nor is it possible always for the witnesses to be in a position to clearly specify as to which blow of which accused landed on which victim and on which part of victims body. This is much more difficult to tell so in cases like the one at hand where multiple number of accused participate in the occurrence launching the attack and multiple number of persons on spot receive injuries. The contention is that it shall be highly impragmatic to expect the witnesses to narrate such specific details and it shall be equally unjust to infer that in the absence of such specifications, the participation of all the accused persons should be viewed with suspicion or doubt. It was further submitted that the other co-accused persons, who wielded the blunt weapons, have also inflicted injuries to the victims. It was next submitted that the deceased succumbed to the injuries and did not survive while the other victims survived whose presence on spot as witnesses can not be doubted. There is no ambiguity in the allegation made against the applicant and consistently the evidence on record shows that he was one of the persons who wielded the sharp edged weapon and was one of the many accused persons who jointly launched the attack resulting in injuries both to the deceased as well as the other injured persons and therefore, no case for bail is made out. Attention was also drawn to the order passed with regard to co-accused Manoj Verma whereby another Bench of this Court has already rejected his bail vide its order dated 20.5.2014.