Allahabad High Court
Anis vs State Of U.P. on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29865 of 2018
Applicant :- Anis
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rinki Gupta,Mohd. Shahanshah Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Prakash Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Mohd. Shahanshah Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant ? Anis with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.789 of 2017, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Bidhnoo, District Kanpur Nagar.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is next argued that as per allegation in the FIR on 04.02.2017 at about 2.00 o'clock when father of the informant was coming along with his grand daughter Mubassira, who is 7 years old and his grand son Anwar on motorcycle to his house at Peepargaon, then at about 7.30 p.m. three accused persons, namely, Rajjab, Moinuddin and Anis (applicant), who were sitting there, came with sharp edged weapons and co-accused Anwar instigated them to kill the father of the informant (deceased) and all the accused persons with common intention attacked on the father of the informant (deceased). It has been alleged that the incident was seen by Mubassira, who started screaming and on hearing the screaming, 4-5 persons came and on seeing them, all the four accused persons fled away. It has also been alleged that deceased Wazeer has a property measuring 3 bighas for which co-accused Anwar was pressurizing him to give the property in his name. Due to this property dispute all the four accused had murdered his father. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is son of the deceased and no incriminating article has been recovered either from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out, hence there is no occasion for him to kill his father. It is next contended that there is no motive or intention to kill his father for the sake of property. The applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.04.2018. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that in the statement of Mubassira, which has been recorded after the orders passed by this Court, it has been stated that she had seen Anis (applicant) and Anwar-co-accused at the time of beating his Nana, but no role of beating has been assigned to other co-accused Rajjab and Moinuddin. It is submitted that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicants, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application stands rejected.
However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same as expeditious, as possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment. in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicants fully cooperate in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment.
Office is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court to the concerned Court below forthwith.
It is clarified that any observations, if any, made by this Court are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Anand Sri./-
