PAWAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. Heard Sri S. P. S. Raghav, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anil Raghav learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri B. K. Solanki learned Counsel for the complainant.

(2.) THIS application has been filed by the applicant Pawan with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 219 of 2005, under Sections 147, 302, 307 I. P. C. , P. S. Sadabad, District Hathras.

(3.) IN reply of the above contention the learned A. G. A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant submit that there is no delay in lodging the F. I. R. , because immediately after the alleged occurrence the deceased and injured were taken to the hospital by the first informant, thereafter, the first informant alongwith the dead-body of the deceased went to the police station to lodge the F. I. R. The role of causing injuries has been assigned to the applicant and other co-accused persons. It has been specifically alleged by the injured that injuries on her person and the deceased were caused by the applicant and co-accused Karamveer by using Chhoori and ballam. The deceased had received 2 incised wounds and injured had received one incised wound. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. There is no undue delay in recording the statement of the injured under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , because her condition was very serious after the alleged occurrence. The specific role of causing the injuries is assigned to the applicant; therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.