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

- **Citation:** (2008) 1 ILRA 110
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-01-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2270 of 2008
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-40907
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 439Grant of Bail-offence under Section 302,
201-specific role of causing injury-FIR
promptly lodged-prosecution story fully
corborated by post mortem examinationnot deserve for bail.

Held: Para 6

Considering the facts, circumstance of
the case, submissions made by learned
counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.
and learned counsel for the complainant,
and without expressing any opinion on
the merit of the case the applicant is not
entitled for ball, because the role of
causing injuries to the deceased is
assigned to the applicant also. The FIR
was promptly lodged. The prosecution
story is fully corroborated by the post
mortem examination report, therefore,
the applicant does not deserve for bail,
the prayer for bail is refused.
1 All] Ravi Prakash Singh @ Kakkoo V. State of U.P.
111

## Text

110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
of
compassionate
appointment
the
decision was taken and 1974 Rules have
been made applicable to the employees of
Zila Panchayat. However, the aforesaid
Rules have been made applicable only to
such employees, who are not within the
purview of the Commission.

6. In this view of the matter, the
daughter in law, who becomes a member
of the family of her husband, in our view,
is included in the definition of 'family' of
father in law and after his death, in the
absence of any other legal heir, she is
entitled
to
claim
compassionate
appointment provided all other conditions
as required in law for such recruitment are
fulfilled. We make it clear that the
aforesaid right of daughter in law would
not be available, if she has remarried or
repatriated to her parents place and in
such case the position would be different.
However, we need not to go into this
aspect further in detail since the Hon'ble
Single Judge vide judgment under appeal
has passed an innocuous order directing
the petitioners to consider the claim of
respondent no.1 in the light of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge in
Sanyogita Rai Vs. State of U.P. (2006(2)
UPLBEC 1972. Learned counsel for the
appellants could not point out, on facts,
that the aforesaid judgment has no
application to the facts of the present case.
Thus, we do not find any legal or factual
error in the judgment of the Hon'ble
Single Judge.

7. The appeal, being without merit,
is dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2270 of
2008

Ravi Prakash Singh @ Kakkoo

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

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Somesh Khare
Smt. Komal Khare

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Kamal Krishna
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 439Grant of Bail-offence under Section 302,
201-specific role of causing injury-FIR
promptly lodged-prosecution story fully
corborated by post mortem examinationnot deserve for bail.

Held: Para 6

Considering the facts, circumstance of
the case, submissions made by learned
counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.
and learned counsel for the complainant,
and without expressing any opinion on
the merit of the case the applicant is not
entitled for ball, because the role of
causing injuries to the deceased is
assigned to the applicant also. The FIR
was promptly lodged. The prosecution
story is fully corroborated by the post
mortem examination report, therefore,
the applicant does not deserve for bail,
the prayer for bail is refused.
1 All] Ravi Prakash Singh @ Kakkoo V. State of U.P.
111
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. This bail application has been
filed by the applicant Ravi Prakash Singh
@ Kakkoo with a prayer that he may be
released on bail in case crime No. 507 of
2007 under sections 302, 201 IPC, P.S.
Badlapur, district Jaunpur.

2. The facts In brief of this case are
that the FIR of this case has been lodged
by Ram Singh et P.S. Badlapur on
16.8.2007 at 8.10 P.M. in, respect of the
incident which had occurred on 16.8.2007
at about 6.15 P.M., the distance of the
police station was about 3 kilometers
from the alleged place of occurrence. The
applicant, co-accused Amit Kumar @
Rinku Singh, co-accused Sunil Kumar
Tripathi
and
co-accused
Awadhesh
Tripathi are named in the FIR. It is
alleged that on 12.8.2007 at about 4.00
P.M. there had been some quarrel
between the deceased and co-accused
Sunil Kumar Tripathi in respect of
parking of vehicle. On 16.8.2007 at about
6.00 P.M. the first informant and his
brother deceased Shyam Singh were
going on a motorcycle No. MH 03/X8041 to their village Kaderepur from
Badlapur after purchasing the medicines.
But in the way near the bridge of
Bhaluahi village at about 6.15 P.M. the
applicant and other co-accused persons
intercepted the motorcycle of the first
informant and the deceased. Thereafter
applicant and some other co-accused
persons assaulted the deceased by using
rod and hockey blows and he along with
his motorcycle was thrown into water by
the assailants. Thereafter the assailants
escaped from the place of occurrence. The
first informant with the help of other
persons took out the deceased from the
water by that time he had died. According
to the post mortem examination report the
deceased has sustained nine ante mortem
injuries in which injuries 1,2,3,4,5 and 7
were lacerated wounds and injuries No.
6,8, and 9 were abraded contusions, the
applicant applied for bail before learned
Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, who rejected the
same on 9.10.2007, being aggrieved from
the order dated 9.10.2007 the applicant
has filed the present bail application.

3. Heard Sri Somesh Khare and Smt.
Komal Khare, learned counsel for the
applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of
U.P. and Sri Kamal Krishna, learned
counsel for the complainant.

4. It is contended by learned counsel
for the applicant that;

I.
The presence of the first informant at
the alleged place of occurrence is
highly doubtful because no attempt
was made by the assailants to cause
injury on his person even he himself
had not made any attempt to save the
life of his brother. The prosecution
story itself shows that the first
informant was not present because
the deceased was thrown into water,
in case the first informant was
present at the alleged place of
occurrence the assailant wound have
escaped leaving the deceased at the
place of occurrence.
II. The presence of other witnesses at
the alleged place of occurrence was
highly doubtful because the alleged
occurrence has taken place in a
lonely place.
III. According to the FIR there was
general allegation of causing the
injuries by using the rod and hockey
blows, no specific weapon was
shown in the hands of the applicant
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
but
during
investigation
the
statement of the first informant Ram
Singh was recorded who stated that
applicant, co-accused Sunil Tripathi
and Awadhesh Tripathi were armed
with iron rods and the co-accused
Amit Kumar @ Rinku Singh was
armed with hockey. It has been
specifically alleged by the first
informant that the, co-accused Rinku
Singh
@
Amit
Kumar
caused
injuries on the person of the deceased
by using the hockey blows in side the
water also. It shows that first of all
the deceased was thrown into water
thereafter the injuries were caused by
the co-accused Rinku Singh @ Amit
Kumar by using the hockey blows,
consequently
the
deceased
succumbed to his injuries.
IV. The
prosecution
story
is
not
corroborated by the post mortem
examination
report
because
the
deceased has sustained all injuries
caused by blunt object and cause of
death as a result of ante mortem head
injuries. It has not been specified as
to who caused the head injuries.
V. That some material improvement has
been made in the prosecution version
during investigation. The applicant
was having no motive or intention to
commit the alleged offence.
VI. Even
according
to
prosecution
version he has no quarrel with the
deceased. The house of the applicant
was situated at the distance of about
12 kilometers from the alleged place
of occurrence.
VII. The applicant is innocent, he is
having no criminal antecedent. He is
in jail since 27.7.2007. He may be
released on bail.

5. In reply of the above contention,
it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and
learned counsel for the complainant that
the deceased has been murdered in a preplaned manner. The active role of causing
injuries on the person of the deceased by
using the iron rod has been assigned to the
applicant. The prosecution story is fully
corroborated
by
the
post
mortem
examination report, the deceased had
sustained nine ante mortem injuries
caused by blunt object, in which injuries
No. 1,2,3,4,5, were on the head region,
there was a fracture on frontal bone of
nose and the left parietal bond, five
injuries were found on the head region
and all the four accused including the
applicant were caused the injuries by
using the iron rod and hockey, and cause
of death was head injury. FIR was
promptly lodged which shows that the
first informant and other persons had seen
the alleged incident. According to the
statement of the first informant Ram
Singh recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.
it has been specifically alleged that first of
all the injuries were caused on the person
of the deceased by the applicant and other
co-accused persons using the iron rod and
hockey blows and in addition to eight
injuries caused on the person of the
deceased, the co-accused Rinku Singh @
Amit Kumar thrown the deceased into the
water and caused the hockey blows.
Therefore, it can not be said that the
injuries were- caused only by co-accused
Rinku Singh @ Amit Kumar. The bail
application of the co-accused Sunil
Kumar Tripathi has been rejected by the
another bench of this court, in case the
applicant is release on bail, he shall
tamper with Kumar. The bail application
of the co-accused Sunil Kumar Tripathi
has been rejected by the another bench of
1 All] M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd V. State of U.P. and others
113
this court, in case the applicant is release
on bail, he shall tamper with evidence.

6.

Considering
the
facts,
circumstance of the case, submissions
made by learned counsel for the applicant,
learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for
the complainant, and without expressing
any opinion on the merit of the case the
applicant is not entitled for ball, because
the role of causing injuries to the
deceased is assigned to the applicant also.
The FIR was promptly lodged. The
prosecution story is fully corroborated by
the post mortem examination report,
therefore, the applicant does not deserve
for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.

7. Accordingly this application is
rejected.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7345 of 2001

M/s
Hindustan
Aeronautics
Limited,
Kanpur

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.D. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shayam Narain
Sri Rajesh Kumar
Sri S.N. Dubey
S.C.

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section
4 K-Company engaged to manufacture
of
sophisticated
Aircraft
and
other
defence
equipments-Labour
court
a
creation of U.P. Act has no jurisdiction to
try the dispute of except the Central
Government-held-invalid-award
given
by labour Court quashed.

Held: Para 10

In my opinion, present writ petition can
be allowed only on the ground that the
reference made by the state Government
under section 4-K of the Act was invalid.
The controversy involved in the present
case is squarely covered by the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of the
petitioner itself in Civil Appeal NO.5655
of 2006, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs.
Hindustan Aeronautics Employee's Union
and another.
Case law discussed:
CA 5655 of 06 decided on 4.12.06, 1961 (2)
FLR-583, 2002 (2) SCC465, 2005(5) SCC 91,
2002 (92) FLR 601, 2005 (7) SCC 764, 1987
(2) SCC 543, 1995 (Supp), 24-SCC-548, 1995
(Supp)(4) 549 Pra288, 2006 (108) FLR 201
AIR 1970 SC.82, AIR 1997 SC 645, 2001 FLR
(91) 182, AIR 1977 SC392, 2001 (90) FLR 745,
2004 (103) FLR 102, AIR 1981 SC 1473, AIR
1987 SC. 2111,AIR 1988 SC 1473, 2003(4)
SCC - 712, 1985 LIC 1683

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar. J.)

1. By means of present petition, the
petitioner is challenging the award dated
10.10.2000 given by the Prescribed
Authority Labour Court (III), U.P.,
Kanpur in Industrial Disputes Case No.1
of 1991 on the reference being made by
the State Government under Section 4 K
of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act).

2. The petitioner is a Company
incorporated under the Indian Companies
Act, 1956 having its registered office at
15/1, Cubbon Road, Bangalore. It is
claimed to be Government of India
undertaking. The petitioner is engaged in