The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of a man accused of attempt to murder.
A single bench of Justice Om Prakash Tripathi passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Rohit.
The bail application has been filed by applicant Rohit with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case under Sections 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 & 427 I.P.C, P.S- Saraimamrej, District- Prayagraj, during pendency of trial.
As per prosecution version, on 18.10.2020, around 5:15 pm, the applicant was coming from Sirsa to his home on his motorcycle. Then Lavkush, Rohit, Arjun and 7-8 other people of the same village, were already sitting at Kamdhenu Convent School with axes, and other crude weapons.
As soon as the applicant reached there, those people attacked him with an intention to kill him. They attacked on the applicant’s head with a hatchet, due to which the applicant fell from the motorcycle and they started hitting him with crude weapons due to which he became unconscious and there were a lot of injuries in the head of the applicant. The foot of the applicant is fractured. There are injuries on teeth and gums, due to which the face of the applicant is swollen. When the applicant was unconscious, then hearing the noise, people came there and then all the accused left the applicant and ran away. Then people picked up the applicant from the spot and put him in a car and started going for treatment. The opposition thought the applicant was dead and then they went to his house and set fire to the thatch and burnt the goat.
The counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The FIR has been lodged with inordinate delay of two days.
It is further submitted that some dispute arose between the parties during Gram Pradhan election which was conducted in the month of March/April 2021, in which the informant was himself candidate of Gram Pradhan and the applicant’s family had supported another candidate, due to this reason and also village party bandi, the informant lodged false and frivolous FIR against the applicant and other co-accused for making a cross case. The applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant has been in custody since 25.08.2021.
Contradicting the applicant’s claims, the counsel for the informant and the AGA submitted that informant has sustained multiple injuries on his head and ankles. In the opinion of the doctor, injuries were caused by hard and blunt objects.
In the same crime number, bail of Sanjay Kumar Bhartiya has been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of the Court order dated 02.07.2021 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application. A chargesheet has been filed against the applicant. The foot of the injured has been fractured.
From perusal of the medical report, it seems that the injured (informant) sustained serious head injury. Encroachment made by the applicant has been demolished so they caused injury to the informant. Thus, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected, the Court observed.
“Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant and counsel for informant and Additional Government Advocate and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as considering the nature of accusation, evidence collected by IO in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of punishment in case of conviction, complicity of the accused and all other attending circumstances were duly considered and active role of the applicant, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused-applicant,” the Court further observed while rejecting the bail application.
“The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible from the date of receipt of certified/computerized copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment,” the order reads.