Allahabad High Court
Sanjeev vs State Of U.P. on 8 July, 2019
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13194 of 2017
Applicant :- Sanjeev
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sheshadri Trivedi
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, Advocate, appearing for Informant.
2. The present bail application has been moved by accused applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No. 210 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly.
3. The F.I.R. was lodged against six persons, namely, Sanjeev, Ranjeet, Hari Om, Manoj, Kapil and Anshu Arya alleging that the aforesaid persons came with firearms and Hari Om exhorted by stating that deceased and others are after my service and they have to be killed today whereupon Hari Om opened fire on the brother of Informant. Thereafter Informant' brother Rajiv and others ran towards Pandal whereupon Manoj, Kapil, Anshu Arya and Ranjeet caught hold Informants' brother and dropped him and Sanjeev opened fire upon brother of Informant. Informant's father tried to save Rajiv but Manoj and Kapil fired upon them and all fled away.
4. It is contended that Hari Om has been granted bail by order dated 04.10.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43306 of 2016. It is also admitted in para 25 of the affidavit supporting application that several Criminal Cases have been filed against applicant though as per applicant, all are minor in nature.
5. Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for Informant, states that applicant is a history sheeter and it is his fire which has caused death of Informant's brother and applicant has also threatened witnesses in the Court which fact has been noticed by learned Sessions Judge while rejecting applicant's Bail Application vide order dated 16.03.2017.
6. Heavy reliance has been placed on Bail order of Hari Om in order to claim parity but a perusal of said order shows that Hari Om opened fire which was claimed in the testimony of PW-1 to have injured the leg of deceased but Court found that the said fact is not corroborated by medical evidence. So far as present applicant is concerned, F.I.R. clearly shows that it is the fire of applicant which has caused death of deceased and with regard to presence of applicant nothing could be shown that his presence is doubtful at the place of incident. The case of applicant is different and distinct with the case of Hari Om, and it cannot be said that applicant, whose fire has caused death of Informants' brother, is similarly placed.
7. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances as also the complaint of respondents that applicant has also threatened witnesses in the Court, which fact has been noticed by learned Sessions Judge in the order rejecting bail, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail.
8. Application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.7.2019
PS
