Allahabad High Court
Khalid Siddiqui vs State Of U.P. on 4 January, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30739 of 2022
Applicant :- Khalid Siddiqui
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajeet Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Shri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Khalid Siddiqui, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2022, under Sections 302,504 IPC Police Station Kotwali, District- Budaun, during pendency of trial.
The First Information Report was initially lodged under sections 307 and 504 I.P.C. against the applicant. Subsequently the injured died, therefore, implication was converted under sections 302 and 504 I.P.C..There is allegation against the applicant that he caused gun shot injury in the leg of the deceased on account of sudden provocation and thereafter he died in the hospital.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that postmortem report of the deceased shows that there was no intention of causing murder of the deceased in fact no firing was made .The deceased himself was tucking country made pistol in his waist, which accidentally fired.He suffered one entry and one exit wound on his left leg. Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in jail since 23.2.2022 and has no criminal history.
Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that applicant repeatedly fired on the deceased to cause his murder but due to bullet missed the target and only hit the leg of the deceased.Applicant has criminal history also and is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
After considering the rival contention, this court finds that following injuries have been found in the postmortem report of the deceased:-
1.An entry wound present of size 2 cmx1 cm over lateral aspect of left thigh about 26 cm. below Anterior Superior IIiac Spine. Blackening present around the wound.
2.An exit wound of size 3 cmx 2 cm. over medial aspect of thigh, about 6 cm. above from left knee over left thigh.
Perusal of the injury report shows that bullet traveled downward diagonally which extends support to the prosecution case that country made pistol tucked in the waist of the deceased got accidentally fired. There is no injury showing that bullet traveled horizontally which gives support to the argument that firing was made from close range. Blacking near the wound of entry of bullet too proves that the submission of learned counsel for the applicant has forged
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1.Applicant will report in the police station in every first week of every third month.
2. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
3. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
4. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
5. That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
6. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
7. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 4.1.2023
Atul kr. sri.
