Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4077 of 2018 Appellant :- Ayub And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bhanu Prakash Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Learned A.G.A. states that notice has been served on opposite party no.2-Chetan on 31.7.2018, but none is present on behalf of the complainant.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 20.6.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Mathura in Bail Application No.1078 of 2017 ( Ayub and another vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.1061 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506 and 452 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Mathura whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.
According to the prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged against five accused persons, namely O.P., Vaseem, Aslam, Faheem and Ayub alleging that on 24.10.2017 they assaulted Chetan and Vimal Kumar. Chetan has received injuries but were found in simple in nature and Vimal Kumar received one grievous injury and fracture was found on his cheek. Other injuries were found in simple in nature.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that co-accused- Aslam, Afsar and Wasim have been enlarged on bail by co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 779 of 2018, vide order dated 21.5.2018, the case of the appellants is identical to the case of co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail; hence the appellants are also entitled for bail on the ground of parity; the are languishing in jail since 27.3.2018 (about five months); having no criminal history; general role has been assigned to all accused; it is not clear who is the other of that injuries; there is no independent witness and if they are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that the appellant has no criminal history and the case of the appellant is identical to the case of co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail.
For the foregoing discussions, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.6.2018 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.
Let appellants Ayub and Faheem involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
1. The appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The appellants 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 or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Office is directed to send the lower court record to the concerned court immediately, if it has been received.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 OP