RAM GANESH Vs. BHOOPCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. R Mathur, J. The complainant has moved this application for cancella tion of bail granted to Bhoop Chand op posite party No. 1, 28-11-1996 by Special Judge/addl. Sessions Judge, Faizabad.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the complainant-applicant, learned State Counsel and have perused the record. Learned Cousncl for the accused-opposite party No. 1 has not appeared even in the revised list. The opposite party No. 1 has also not filed any counter-affidavit.

(3.) IN this case four persons are alleged to have assaulted the deceased and Bhoop Chand who was armed with a deadly weapon like spear had also caused injuries which resulted in fracture of the leg bone. The mere fact that there was no injury to any vital part of the body by spear cannot lead to an inference that Bhoop Chand did not intend to cause the death of the deceased or that he did not share the com mon intention with other co-accused to commit the murder of Ram Milan. The individual liability of Bhoop Chand can not be reduced in any manner by the mere fact that there was no spear injury on the chest or abdomen. It may be noticed that in the post-mortem report the doctor has mentioned that death had taken place due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of anic-mortem injuries. This shows that deceased died due to the cumulative effect of the injuries inflicted upon him. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the order granting bail to the accused is wholly unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the case and the same deserves to be set aside.