Kausar Khan vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 1584 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 86
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13167 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Kausar Khan
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 56 of 2019, (Sessions Trial No. 418 of 2019) under Sections 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kundarki, District Moradabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant surfaced during investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Mahendra, who stated that the applicant fired with his fire arm weapon. It is further submitted that co-accused Fayeem, Asraf, Sintu @ Sumit, Mahendra and Nempal, have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 21.11.2019, 07.08.2019, 10.12.2019, 19.02.2020 and 13.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 33890 of 2019, 31246 of 2019, 45072 of 2019, 6902 of 2020, and 24825 of 2019 respectively. There is no other evidence against the applicant except the confessional statement of co-accused Mahendra. It is next submitted that applicant has a criminal history of 25 more cases, which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit. It is next contended that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence.The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.04.2019. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that during investigation, the role of the applicant is assigned of firing with firearm weapon. The applicant is a habitual offender. He has a criminal history of as much as 25 cases including heinous offence.

In view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another (2015) 3 SCC 527, criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be ignored while deciding bail application, discretionary powers of Courts to grant bail must be exercised in a judicious manner in case of a habitual offender.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of the offence and severity of the punishment, I do not find any good ground to grant bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

Order Date :- 16.1.2023

Sazia