SURESH KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Applicant Suresh Kumar Yadav is an accused in crime number 2246 of 2005 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali District Lalitpur (Session's Trial Number 14 of 2006 ). He has filed the above noted ball application in this Court seeking his release on bail in the aforesaid crime number after the same is refused by the Session's Judge, Lalitpur, vide his order dated 5-5-2006, Annexure No. 5, to this bail application.

(2.) THE prosecution allegations against the applicant, as is culled from the FIR (Annexure No. 1), are that Ram Singh son of Raghubir Singh is the driver of Bundela brothers of Lalitpur. On 10-11-2005 he was carrying Sanjai Singh Bundela, Dhirendra Pratap Singh and Babboo Soni in a Scorpio Jeep to Lalitpur from Kala Pahad. He had to stop on a railway crossing near a railway signal because the crossing gate was closed at 4. 45 p. m. that date. At that time Jeep No. UP 094 A 8084 carrying Jai Ram Singh, Jogendra Singh alongwith his gunner, younger son of Jai Ram Singh, wife of Jai Ram Singh, Gajendra Raja and three others reached there and stopped the Jeep by the side of informants Scorpio Jeep and surrounded informant and his passengers. Informant and other persons got down from the Scorpio Jeep and inquired as to what was the matter on which Jogendra Singh pointed his rifle towards the chest of Sanjai Singh and challenged that he wanted to fight the Panchayat President election against him and therefore, they will not spare him and no sooner thereafter Jairam Singh from Sten Gun and rest from their pistols started firing at the informant and his co-passengers as a result of which Sanjai Singh, Dharmendra Singh sustained gun shot injuries and died on the spot and Babboo @ Brijesh Soni sustained many fire-arm injuries. Kailash son of Mukundey, Usman Khan son of Pir Khan, reached on the spot and witnessed the incident. Jai Ram Singh accused had also sustained fire-arm injuries from the firing made by his associates. Informant rushed to the police station Kotwali and got the FIR, Annexure No. 1 scribed from Balbhadra Singh and lodged it at 7. 35 p. m. covering a distance of 4-1/2 Kms that day itself. THE incident as is mentioned in the body of the FIR occurred on 10-11-2005 at 4. 45 p. m. THE autopsy reports on the dead-bodies of Sanjai Kumar Singh @ Sanju Raja Dharmendra Paratap Singh, were conducted on 11-11-2005 at 1. 30 and 4. 10 a. m. and these reports, Annexure No. 2 and 3, indicates that they were found to have sustained fire-arm wounds and the cause of their death were anti mortem injuries. Injured Brijesh Kumar Soni was medically examined on 10-11-2005 at 6. 30 p. m. (Before the FIR was registered), vide Annexure No. 4, and his medical examination report shows that he sustained four fire arm wounds and two lacerated wounds. In the opinion of the doctor his injuries number 1 to 4 were caused by fire arm and rest number 5 and 6 were caused by blunt object. His medical examination report also shows that he was brought it to the hospital by unknown person as after writing B/b rest was left blank by the doctor. His medical report also indicate that he was advised X-ray for Injuries No. 1 to 4 of left thigh, pelvic region and right hand. On these allegations the applicant has applied for his release on bail.

(3.) LEARNED AGA contrarily submitted that in this case two persons have been shot dead in day light and one person had sustained injuries and the applicant is one of the main culprits. He contended that it was the weapon of the applicant which was used in the crime and there is an explanation of the injuries of Jairam Singh Yadav in the FIR lodged by the prosecution. He also contended that prosecution side had sustained injuries on the back, which indicates that they were shot at while running. He also submitted that cross version was found to be false and a final report was submitted by the I. O. but later-on, on the protest the two persons from the side of the prosecution have been summoned. He contended that the defence of the applicant is false and cooked up. He also contended that FIR is prompt and there are eye- witness account of the incident and the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.