# Hari Shankar (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2008) 1 ILRA 330
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-02-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3082 of 2008
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hari-shankar-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-41111
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-439Bail-offence under Section 147, 148,
149, 302 IPC-role of discharging shots
by
applicant
and
other
persons
witnessed by two witnesses-on account
of enmity committed murder-day light
incident considering strong motive and
specific role of applicant-not a fit case
for bail.

Held: Para 6

Considering the facts, circumstances of
the case and submission made by the
learned counsel for the applicant and the
learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel
for the complainant, and considering the
active role of firing is assigned to the
applicant and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, the
applicant
is
not
entitled
for
bail.
Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.

## Text

330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
30. In two judgments cited on behalf
of the petitioners, one is that of a Division
Bench judgment of Hon'ble High Court in
Bank of India and others (supra) and
another of an Hon'ble Single Judge of
Calcutta High Court in Bank of India
(supra), it has clearly been held that the
hiring of Bank Lockers is not taxable
under the relevant sales tax statutes of
those States. We are in agreement with
the ultimate conclusion reached by the
Hon'ble Courts, though with slight
different reasons. The Act would not
apply to the petitioners for including
transaction in question within its ambit.

31. In the result, all these writ
petitions are allowed. The impugned
orders of assessment and notices issued
by the taxing authorities with respect to
the various years of assessment are hereby
quashed and it is declared that the
petitioners-Banks are not liable to pay
trade tax under the Act on rent charged
for hiring of Safe Vault Lockers to its
customers. The respondents are restrained
from proceeding ahead for making any
assessment against the petitioners with
respect to the rent charged by the Bank
for user of Lockers from its Customers.

32. There shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3082 of
2008

Hari Shankar
...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Satish Trivedi
Sri Sudhir Shandilya

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Neeraj Kr. Srivastava
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-439Bail-offence under Section 147, 148,
149, 302 IPC-role of discharging shots
by
applicant
and
other
persons
witnessed by two witnesses-on account
of enmity committed murder-day light
incident considering strong motive and
specific role of applicant-not a fit case
for bail.

Held: Para 6

Considering the facts, circumstances of
the case and submission made by the
learned counsel for the applicant and the
learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel
for the complainant, and considering the
active role of firing is assigned to the
applicant and 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 Hari Shanker with a prayer
that he may be released on bail in case
1 All] Hari Shankar V. State of U.P.
331
crime no. 110 of 2007 under sections
147,148,149 and 302 I.P.C. P.S. Todi
Fetehpur district Jhansi.

2. The fact of the case in brief are
that the F.I.R. of this case has been
lodged by Dal Chand on 12.3.2007 at
10.30 a.m. in respect of the incident which
had occurred on 12.3.2007 at about 7.20
a.m. against the applicant and 9 other coaccused persons, it is alleged that the
deceased Lakh Chand, had gone to attend
the call of nature on 12.3.2007 at .7.12
a.m., he was sitting in the filed of
Matadeen for easing, in the meantime, the
applicant, co-accused Hira Lal, Sewa
Ram, Himmat Singh, Lalu Virendra,
Pushpendra, Kuldeep, Suresh and Kailash
armed with gun came there by that time,
the deceased came back after easing, the
shots were discharged at him by the
applicant and other co-accused persons,
the alleged incident was witnessed by
Ambika and Dashrath after sustaining the
gun shot injury the deceased died
instantaneously, according to the post
mortem examination report, the deceased
has sustained six ante mortem injuries, in
which injury no.1 was gun shot wound of
entry having its exit wounds, injury no.2
was gun shot wound of entry having its
exit wound, injury no. 3 was gun shot
wound of entry, injury no. 4 was multiple
lacerated wound, injury no. 5 was
lacerated wound, injury no. 6 was
abrasion, one bullet and 12 pellets were
extracted from the body of the deceased.

3. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior
Advocate,
assisted
by
Sri
Sudhir
Shandilya,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of
U.P. and Sri Niraj Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the complainant.

4. It is contended by the learned
counsel for the applicant that according to
the prosecution version 10 persons
including the applicant discharged shots
but the deceased has sustained only five
injuries caused by the firearm, the alleged
occurrence has taken place at an isolated
place,
the
presence
of
he
alleged
witnesses at the place of occurrence was
highly doubtful, the witness Ambika was
interrogated under section 161 Cr.P.C.
after 9 days of the alleged occurrence but
he has not disclosed the name of the
applicant and other witness Dashrath was
not interrogated, the first informant Dal
Chand is not an eye witness, the
participation of the applicant is highly
doubtful, he is innocent, he may be
released on bail.

5. In reply to the above contention it
is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that
the statement of Dal Chand has been
recorded who clearly stated that the
applicant and other persons discharged
shots and the alleged incident was
witnessed by Abmika and Dashrath and
other persons, on account of old enmity,
they have committed the murder of the
deceased. It is further contended that first
the statement of Ambika has been
recorded in which he disclosed the name
of the applicant, and the witness Dashrath
has been interrogated who also made
specific allegation against the applicant
that the applicant discharged shot towards
the deceased, the F.I.R. of this case has
been promptly lodged, it is the day light
incident, there was strong motive for the
applicant to commit the alleged offence,
in case the applicant is released on bail,
he shall tamper with the evidence, the bail
application of the applicant and the coaccused Hira Lal, Sewa Ram and Himmat
have been rejected by another of this
332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
court on 9.7.2007 in criminal misc. bail
application 14806 of 2007, therefore the
applicant may not be released on bail.

6.

Considering
the
facts,
circumstances of the case and submission
made by the learned counsel for the
applicant and the learned A.G.A. and the
learned counsel for the complainant, and
considering the active role of firing is
assigned to the applicant and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, the applicant is not entitled for
bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is
refused.

7. Accordingly this application is
rejected.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.02.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9645 of 2008

(Smt.) Suhagwati and others

...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey

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

U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms
Act 1950, Section 198 (4) read with U.P
Consolidation
of
Holding
Act
1955,
Section 5 (2)-Cancellation of lease for
agricultural purpose-during pendency of
proceeding-notification u/s 4 (A) of
Consolidation of Holding Act whether
such
cancellation
proceeding
would
abate? Held-provision u/s 198 (4) an
special
provision-only
the
collector
empowered to consider the cancellation
not a proceeding for correction of
record-in view of full Bench case of
Similesh Kumar-can not be treated to be
proceeding
under
Consolidation
of
Holding Act.

Held: Para 8

The grant of lease under sections 195
and 197 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is special
provision
provided
under
the
U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act. 1950. Section 198 (4) also contains
a provision for cancellation of such lease
which power vests in the Collector by
virtue of section 198. The Collector can
cancel the lease, if he is satisfied that
allotment is irregular. Section 5 (2) of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
contemplates abatement of proceedings
regarding the correction of records and
every suit and proceeding in respect of
declaration of rights or interest in any
land lying in the area, or for declaration
or adjudication of any other right in
regard to which proceedings can or
ought to be taken under the U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act.
The
proceedings for cancellation of lease are
not the proceedings of correction of
records. They can also not be treated as
suit
or
proceeding
in
respect
of
declaration of rights or interest in any
land. The petitioners, who pray for
cancellation of lease, do not claim
declaration of their rights or interest in
the land nor the proceedings under
section 198 (4) can be treated to be
proceedings
taken
under
the
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Case law discussed:
1977 RD 408 (FB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned standing counsel
representing the respondents No.1 and 2.