PARVIND Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant; the learned A.G.A. for the State; Sri Raghvendra Prakash for the informant; and perused the record.

(2.) The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in respect of an incident dated 31.3.2015, which is said to have occurred at 7 A.M. in the morning, a report was got registered by the father of the applicant against Sureman (deceased) and three other persons of having assaulted the applicant and four other persons, who have received injuries. The incident is said to have taken place on account of dispute between children. It has been submitted that the present case against the applicant was got registered on 2.4.2015 against five persons including the applicant alleging that the deceased (Sureman) was hit by a Tangi, which was wielded by the applicant whereas others assaulted him with lathi and danda. It has been submitted that there is only a single ante mortem injury found on the head of the deceased and no other injury has been found. It has been submitted that there is nothing on record to show that a second blow was inflicted and since admittedly the applicant has also received seven injuries on his body, inflicting of one blow can be said to be an act to save himself. It has lastly been submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and is in jail since 7.4.2015 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

(3.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.