Allahabad High Court
Naanmun vs State Of U.P. on 22 April, 2019
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 13
Case :- BAIL No. - 931 of 2019
Applicant :- Naanmun
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned GA today in Court, is taken on record.
Heard the learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State, Ms. Neelam Insan and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Naanmun for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 183 of 2018, under Sections 323, 307, 336, 354, 504, 506 IPC, relating to Police Station Kaudia, District Gonda.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant case. The applicant has not been made any offence and the name of the applicant has only been dragged due to fact that FIR was also lodged against the father of the applicant.
He further submits that all allegations in the FIR as well as in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are patently wrong. The role of assaulting by pelting stones has only been alleged against the applicant and the role of firing with fire-arm has specifically been assigned to co-accused Maya Ram (brother of the accused-applicant).
It is further stated that all the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have attributed the role of firing to co-accused Maya Ram and no injury of any kind other than fire-arm has been noticed on the person of both the injureds, namely, Bandhidhar and Kanhaiya Lal. It is further submitted that the accused-applicant is in jail in this matter since 30.10.2018. The charge sheet in the matter has already been filed and there is no previous criminal history against the applicant. There is no likelihood that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Naanmun involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 22.4.2019
Muk
