Allahabad High Court
Ashif vs State Of U.P. on 28 May, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22209 of 2019
Applicant :- Ashif
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- M J Akhtar,Sri V.M.Zaidi Sr.Adv.
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel filed Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant, is 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.
The incident is alleged to have taken place on 14.9.2017 at 17:45 hours and the FIR was lodged on the same day at 20:00 hours by Kaleem. In the FIR it has been stated that on 14.9.2017 at about 05:45 PM, Mansad and Dilsad, his brothers came to his village on their Maruti 800 Car bearing registration No. DL 2CN 0565. When they reached near their house, they parked the car in front of the house of Dariyab, near the Panchayati Bhawan of village Sanauta over the vacant land. As soon as they came out from the car, then Dharmvir son of Dariyab, Ashok son of Dariyab, Dariyab son of Badam, Haji Gulfam son of Wahid, Ravi son of Dharmvir, Madan son of Durga, Anuj son of Madan, Salman son of Akhlaq, Sheru son of Asif, Mukesh son of Durga, Sadan son of Arif, Abhishek son of Manoj, Monu alias Mohit son of Bhopal all were residents of village Sanauta came there and asked the brothers of the informant to remove his car from that place. They began to hurl the abuses in loud voice on which the informant, Naushad, Naved, Shoib and various other persons of locality came on the spot. Nasir son of Yasin, Shahid son of Yasin, Ilu son of Haji Gulfam, Ashif son of Jafira (applicant), Akhlaq son of Wahid also reached there and exhorted to the other persons to shoot the brothers of the informant on which all the accused began to fire from the weapons in their hands due to which the injuries were caused to Mansad and Dilshad, who died on the spot. In the postmortem report of Mansad, one entry wound and two multiple lacerated wounds were found and on the body of Dilshad multiple lacerated wounds were found. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case during investigation Om Prakash and Chaman were interrogated by the I.O. as eye witnesses. So far as, Om Prakash is concerned, he has stated that on the date of incident Mansad parked his car in front of the house of Dariyab which was objected by Dariyab on which Mansad has used unfair language to him. He became anger went towards his house and thereafter, came on the spot along with his brother Dilsad taking Danda and Hockey in their hands. On coming, Mansad began to abuse Dharmvir, Ashok and ladies of the house of Dharmvir which was objected by the ladies of house of Dharmvir, Dariyab, Ashok, Ravi and Madan. In the meantime, firing were done from the house of Dariyab which caused injury to the Mansad and Dilsad. The similar statement has been given by the witness Chaman. In the statements of Vijay Kumar and Subhash it has come that 3-4 fires were made from the house of Dariyab. Only the role of exhortation has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant had not caused any injury to the deceased persons. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. It has further been submitted that co-accused Haji Gulfam having identical role has already been released on bail by another bench of this court vide order dated 8.5.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9954 of 2018, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 16.9.2017.
Per contra; learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and he was also present on the spot at the time of alleged occurrence. The allegation of exhortation has been levelled against the applicant, 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 Ashif involved in Case Crime No. 237 of 2017, under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Falawada Meerut, District Meerut 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 :- 28.5.2019
Masarrat
