NARENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2000-11-26
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 24,2000

NARENDRA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) V. K. Chaturvedi, J. Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar and Shri Tarun Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA.
(2.) FIRST bail application was rejected by this Bench on 28-3- 2000. The Second bail application has been filed on the ground that named accused Nem Singh has not been charge-sheeted by the police. According to the First Information Report lodged by Balbeer Singh in P. S. Chandausi on 3-9-99 at about 3. 45 p. m. applicant along with three other accused person namely Lekhraj, Nekepal and Nem Singh were assigned the role of causing injuries to the deceased by fire arms. In the statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. the informant and other witnesses have also stated that all the four named accused persons have fired from their respective fire arm weapons. After investigating the case the final report was submitted against one named accused person (Nem Singh) against whom the role of fire has been assigned to him and one more accused Kishan Lal was added in the charge-sheet. Kishan Lal was not named in the First Information Report neither he was named by the witnesses in their statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. recorded on 4-9-99. A supplementary affidavit and the certified copy of the charge-sheet as well as the report under Section 169, Cr. P. C. against named accused person have been filed today which are taken on record.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the com plainant has argued that after recording the first statement of the witness under Section 161, Cr. P. C. on 3-9-99 and 4-9-99, again the statement of those witnesses were second time recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. on 9-9-2000 and in those statement the Nem Singh was not named, and one Kishan Lal was introduced. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that a Trial is in progress. Any observation by this Court can prejudice the Trial. Without making any observation on the merit of the case and the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is a fit case for bail. Let the applicant Narendra Singh, involved in case crime No. 357 of 1999 under Sections 302/34, 452,1. P. C. and 3 (2) (5) of S. C. S. T. Act, P. S. Chandausi, Dislt. Moradabed be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM concerned. Bail granted. .;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.