# Awdhesh Singh (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 251
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-09-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17764 of 2006
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/awdhesh-singh-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-40852
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

1 All] Mohd. Feroj V. State of U.P. and another
251
of the punishment which can have an
adverse effect on them.

3. The Lower Appellate Court also
in an unmindful manner has rejected the
bail prayer of the revisionist. I have
considered the merits of the matter. In
my view, the revisionist deserves to be
released on bail.

4. The revisionist Mohd. Feroj is
directed to be released on bail on his
father Mohd. Hanif furnishing a personal
bond of Rs.50,000.00 and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar.
Father of the revisionist Mohd. Hanif is
directed to keep his son Mohd. Feroj
under his guardianship. He is further
directed to produce Mohd. Feroj before
Juvenile Justice Board once in a month.
He is further directed to keep watch over
his son Mohd. Feroj so that he may not
indulge any criminal activity in further.

With the aforesaid direction, this
revision
is
finally
allowed
at
the
admission stage itself.
---------
APPELLATION JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17764
of 2006

Awdhesh Singh
...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P.
...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri V.P. Srivastava
Sri Ram Lal Singh
Sri Lav Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Braham Singh
Sri Susheel Kumar Tiwari
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 439Bail Application offence under section
147, 148, 149, 307, 302/34 read with
U.P. Criminal law Amendment Act S. 7informant and injured persons belonging
to Scheduled Cast-applicant, a very
powerful
man-offence
committed-in
order to establish supremacy-occurrence
took
place
broad
day
light-role
of
causing injury by rifle-two persons lost
their
life-several
injured-considering
gravity of case-without expressing any
opinions on merit-held-not entitled for
bail.

Held: Para 7

Considering the facts that the alleged
occurrence had taken place in broad day
light, F.I.R. was promptly lodged, role of
causing injury by rifle has been assigned
to the applicant, two persons have lost
their lives, several persons are injured,
the cause of death was due to fire arm
injury and there are injured witnesses to
support
the
prosecution
story,
the
gravity of offence is too much and other
facts and circumstances of the case and
submission made by both side, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, the applicant is not entitled for
bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is
refused.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. This application has been filed by
the applicant Awdhesh Singh with the
prayer that he may be released on bail in
case crime no. 16 of 2006 under sections
147,148,149,307,302/34
I.P.C.
and
Section 3(2)(v) SC.C./S.T.(P.A) Act and
section
7
of
U.P.
Criminal
Law
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Amendment Act P.S. Dhanapur district
Chandauli.

2. The prosecution story in brief is
that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged
by the applicant Ram Lakhan Ram at P.S.
Dhanapur on5.3.2006 at about 12.30 p.m.
in respect of the incident which had
occurred on 15.3.2006 at about 11.00
p.m., the distance of the police station was
about 5 k.m. from the alleged place of
occurrence, alleging therein that the first
informant was belonging to Chamar
Caste, on 15.3.2006 at about 11.00 a.m.
the accused Desh Raj Singh hurled abuses
to the deceased Ramapati due to the
enmity of previous election, he was asked
not to abuse then the co-accused Ganga
Sagar, co-accused Bhullan alias Ramesh,
co-accused Hansraj caused injuries by
using lathi and danda blows on the person
of Smt. Kaushalya, Achche Lal, Ram
Lakhan and Dehuli. They were asked
again not to beat then the applicant having
a licensed rifle, co-accused Saheb Singh
and Bablu Singh having unauthorised fire
arm chased the first informant and others.
Dilip Kumar and Dinesh have made
attempt to pacify the matter but the
applicant and co-accused Saheb Singh,
Bablu Singh discharged shots by their
respective
weapon,
consequently
deceased Ramapati, deceased Ram Nihore
and injured Saraswati ran to save their
lives but they were chased by the
applicant and others discharged shots
consequently Ramapati, deceased Ram
Nihore
sustained
injuries,
deceased
Ramapati died instantaneously. Due to the
above act done by the applicant and
others persons a panic was created and a
atmosphere of fear and terror was created.

3. According to the post mortem
examination report the deceased Ramapati
received three ante mortem injuries in
which injury no.1 was abraded contusion,
injury no.2 was fire arm wound of entry
and injury no.3 was fire arm wound of
exit. The deceased Ram Nihore sustained
two ante mortem injuries in which injury
no. 1 was firearm wound of entry and its
exit wound, injury no.2. Injured Dehuli
sustained five injuries. Injured Sadani
sustained
three
injuries.
Injured
Nageshwari Devi sustained one injury.
Injured Saraswati sustained four injuries.
Injured Ram Lakhan sustained two
injuries.

4. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior
Advocate, assisted by Sri Ram Lal Singh
and Sri Lav Srivastava, learned counsel
for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the
State of U.P. and Sri Braham Singh and
Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for
the complainant.

5. It is contended by the learned
counsel for the applicant:

1.
That the prosecution story is false,
concocted and highly improbable.
2.
That the prosecution story is not
corroborated by the medical evidence
because according to the F.I.R. the
applicant and other co-accused persons
discharged shots from the back side but
both of the deceased received injuries on
front side. Therefore, the manner of the
occurrence has been changed during
investigation by alleging that the injuries
were caused from the front side.
3.
That according to the prosecution
version the applicant was armed with
licence rifle but the direction of the
injuries are upward to downward which
suggest that the injuries were not caused
as
alleged
by
the
prosecution.
1 All] Awdhesh Singh V. State of U.P.
253
4.
That the prosecution story is not
corroborated by the spot inspect note and
the site plan.
5.
That the alleged motive is absolutely
false, baseless because the previous
election was not contested by any of the
first informant side, therefore, there was
no question of enmity.
6.
That the applicant is a peaceful
person. He is not a previous convict and
not wanted in any other case. Therefore,
he may be released on bail.

6. In reply to the above contentions
it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. ad
the learned counsel for the complainant:

I.
That the alleged occurrence had
taken place in a broad daylight. Its F.I.R.
has been lodged within 1,1/2 hours. The
distance of the police station was about 5
k.m. Specific role of causing injury by
rifle has been assigned to the applicant. In
this case two persons have lost their lives.
The injuries were caused by the fire arm
and several persons are injured.
II.
That the applicant is a very powerful
man and the first informant and injured
persons belong to scheduled cast, weaker
section of the society and the applicant
and other co-accused persons have
committed the alleged offence without
any reason, in order to establish his
supremacy. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he shall temper with
evidence. Therefore, he may not be
released on bail

7. Considering the facts that the
alleged occurrence had taken place in
broad day light, F.I.R. was promptly
lodged, role of causing injury by rifle has
been assigned to the applicant, two
persons have lost their lives, several
persons are injured, the cause of death
was due to fire arm injury and there are
injured
witnesses
to
support
the
prosecution story, the gravity of offence is
too
much
and
other
facts
and
circumstances of the case and submission
made by both side, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, the
applicant
is
not
entitled
for
bail.
Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.

8. Accordingly this application is
rejected.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8309 of 1990

Sukhdeo

...Petitioner
Versus
Collector, Banda & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.D. Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Singh
S.C.

U.P.Z.A.
&
L.R.
Act-Section
122-BEviction
for
Graon
Sabha
Landproceeding initiated after 30 years-even
if the allotment not found valid-due to in
ordinate delay-can not be evicted-nor
the damage more than the market rate
can be imposed.

Held: Para 3

In view of this, even though I agree that
valid allotment was not fully proved by
the petitioner still due to inordinate
delay of 30 years in initiating the
proceedings for eviction, award of the
damages is the appropriate relief instead