BHUREY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R.P.S. Chauhan learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Pramod Kumar Gupta learned Counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case on 11 -1 -06 at about 8.00 p.m. the applicant alongwith co -accused Indrapal Singh, Satya Veer Singh and Sukh Veer Singh all armed with country made pistol except Sukh Veer Singh who was armed with licenced gun came to the door of the informant abused him and his son and extorted that they will not allow them to live. The aforesaid four accused persons fired upon the injured Vijay Veer and Jai Veer causing injuries to them. The F.I.R. was lodged the same day at about 21.15 p.m.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant has further argued that the co -accused Sukh Veer Singh has not been charge -sheeted which shows that the entire prosecution case is false. In this connection he has placed reliance on State of Punjab v. Daljit Singh and Anr., 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 1776, wherein it was held that if the alibi of co -accused is accepted it indicates that the eye witnesses were capable of falsely implicating innocent persons. I could not gather why the learned Counsel for the applicant relied upon this case law which is off the point. The ruling is not applicable. Firstly because it is off the point and secondly it relates to the trial and not to the bail. Besides that if the Investigating Officer has omitted the name of a co -accused from the charge -sheet it does not mean that the complainant cannot be bring the said accused to face the trial even under the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. The co -accused persons cannot be get any benefit of that action of the Investigating Officer.