LAWS(ALL)-2008-2-186

OM PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On February 27, 2008
OM PAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the applicant Om Pal with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 2107 of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307 and 302, I.P.C. P. S. Kotwali City district Bijnor.

(2.) THE fact of the case in brief are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Ved Pal Singh on 8.9.2006 at 4.00 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred in the night of 7/8.9.2006 at about 3.30 a.m., distance of the police station was about 8 km. from the alleged place of occurrence, the applicant and seven other co-accused persons are named in the F.I.R. It is alleged that prior the alleged incident one Tej Pal Singh alias Roshan was murdered by the co-accused Rupesh, co-accused Sonu, co-accused Dinesh and co-accused Som Pal, they were pressurizing the deceased to settle the dispute by way of a compromise but the same was refused by the deceased, in the night of 7/8.9.2006 at about 3.30 a.m., the applicant and other co-accused persons armed with sword and country made pistol came at the roof of the deceased Tejpal where Updesh and Ganeshi were also sleeping and caused injury by using country made pistol, gun and sword and other weapons consequently, the deceased Tejpal died instantaneously and Updesh and Ganeshi sustained injuries. According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased has sustained several ante mortem injuries in which injury Nos. 1 and 4 were lacerated wounds, injury Nos. 3 and 6 were gun shot wounds and injury Nos. 5 and 7 were abrasion. According to the medical examination report of Ganeshi, he had sustained 11 injuries, in which injury Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 were incised wounds, and injury Nos. 2 and 8 were lacerated wounds and the injured Updesh had sustained 2 injuries, in which injury No. 1 lacerated wound and injury No. 2 was gun shot wound.

(3.) IT is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence, but he has been falsely implicated due to village party bandi.