Court No. - 48 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.

- 32201 of 2010 Petitioner :- Brijmani Yadav @ Veermani Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Ajit Kumar Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava,J. A correction application dated 8.4.2011 is pressed today before the Court and the learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the name of the applicant wherever it appears in the bail application. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant, Brij Mani Yadav @ Veermani Yadav (now corrected as Brijmani Singh @ Veermani), who is involved in Case Crime No.418 of 2010 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 332, 353, 354, 308, 304 IPC, P.S. Karenda, District Ghazipur. According to the complainant of this case Km.Kusum Yadav, all the three accused persons named in the FIR used to tease her whenever she went on her duty. On 5.5.2010 she was going alongwith her brother Rakesh Yadav to attend to her duty. On her way all the three accused persons named in the FIR alongwith four unknown persons attacked the deceased Rakesh and thereafter they tried to molest the complainant. When she raised an alarm the villagers of the nearby village rushed to her rescue whereupon all the miscreants ran away. She found that her brother was lying on the ground and was badly injured. He was rushed to the hospital. An FIR was lodged with the police on 5.5.2010 at 3.40 p.m. The injured Rakesh was referred to the Medical College, B.H.U., Varanasi after being referred from the district hospital, Ghazipur, but he could not survive. Thereafter the case was converted under Section 304 IPC also. During the course of investigation the name of the applicant came to light. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It has been submitted from the side of the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 13.7.2010, that he has not been named in the FIR, that no specific role has been assigned to him. It has further been submitted that three co-accused of this case namely Shrvan Yadav, Surendra Singh and Kundan have been released on bail by this Court on merits. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned AGA arguing on behalf of the State. It has been pointed out that in the two bail granting orders the role of the applicant has been clearly distinguished by this Court. My attention has been drawn towards the statements of the witnesses of the facts, who have clearly stated that they had identified the applicant who had caused the fatal blow on the head of the deceased. The role of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from the roles of the co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail. This fact has already been mentioned in the two bail granting orders. From the perusal and the statements of the eye witnesses it is evident that it was the applicant who had caused the lethal blow on the head of the deceased. Considering all the aspects of the case and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, I am of the view that there is no force in the bail application and therefore, it is rejected. Order Date :- 29.9.2011