Allahabad High Court
Jafar vs State Of U.P. on 16 April, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15656 of 2019
Applicant :- Jafar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Sri Rama Shanker Mishra learned counsel filed Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant, be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is an old man aged about 70 years. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. Recovery of licensee DBBL gun has been shown from the possession of the applicant but no empty cartridge of 12 bore has been found on the place of occurrence. It has further been submitted that the FIR of the alleged incident was lodged against 10 persons including the applicant making general allegation of firing upon the deceased and injured persons. Total number of injuries which have been caused by firearm weapons are four in numbers i.e. one entry and exit wound to the deceased, 2 firearm injuries to Ahmad and third injured, Kasim has received one injury. It is next argued that in postmortem five injuries are shown but three out of them were not actually injuries rather they appear to have been shown because of treatment given to the patient. It has further been argued that who is the author of the shot which caused the death of the deceased is not clear as in the statement of the injured witnesses it has come that all the accused persons had fired upon the deceased as well as the other injured simultaneously. It has further been submitted that co-accused Kale, Aslam, Ali Hasan and Yamin Khan having identical role have already been released on bail by another bench of this court vide orders dated 22.2.2019, 13.2.2019, 16.1.2019 and 13.3.2019 respectively, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 27.6.2018.
Per contra; learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is named in the FIR. The applicant and other co-accused have committed the alleged offence, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Jafar involved in Case Crime No. 344 of 2018, under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 506 IPC and section 27 of Arms Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Kant, District Shahjahanpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. He shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.
3. He shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.
In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 16.4.2019
Masarrat
