Court No. - 24
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50884 of 2017 Applicant :- Dharmendra Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anant Vijay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard Ms. Swati Agarwal, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accused- applicant, Dharmendra Verma, who is involved in Case Crime No. 103 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. & 30 Arms Act, P.S.- G.R.P. Ghazipur, District- Ghazipur.
As per FIR, the prosecution case is that on 13.07.2017 at about 14.20 hours an FIR has been lodged at P.S. G.R.P. Ghazipur against the applicant. The allegation is that at 11.00 AM applicant with other co-accused Jeetendra Verma, Surendra Verma, Firoz Ahmad Ansari and Mahmood Ansari fired gunshot due to rivalry by circumscribing his son, wherein the son of the complainant has sustained serious injuries. He admitted to the hospital at Ballia.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that copy of injury report has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support the bail application. The injured was admitted in the hospital on 13.07.2017 and discharged on 23.07.2017. The injuries noticed by the Doctor are as under:
"1. Lacerated wound about 3 cm x 1.5 cm mid part of forehead 10 cm above from Rt. eyebrow bleeding present.
2. Fire arm wound of ....approx. 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity deep over forehead between both eyebrows bleeding present."
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the injuries were not on the vital parts of the body nor dangerous to life. The Doctor, who examined the injuries of the injured opined that the injuries seems to be fire arm injury. It is further contended that in the first information report no role has been assigned to the applicant. Further in the FIR general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including co-accused Firoz Ansari alias Firoz Ahmad Ansari, who has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2018. The victim/injured Ganga Verma in the statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has stated as under:
"Ghatna ke din main kam par Ghazipur jane ke liye baitha tha. Main Manu ke stall par baitha tha Firoz va Badke jo tajpur ke rahane wale hain pahale se vahan maujood the. Badke ne Firoj se Bandook manga ki do Bandook ese mar doon. Es par Firoz ne Badke se kaha ki tumhari haisiyat hai ese marne kee es par Badke bola mujhe himmat hai es par Firoz ne chhoti wali Bandook chadha karke Badke ko de diya aur usne mujhe goli mar dee uske bad main goli lagne se gir gaya jab mujhe hosh aya to main apane ko BHU main paya mere pitaji, mere bhai, meri patni sabhi log mujhe ghere guye the aur ro ga rahe the."
Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the case on 31.07.2017. The incident is of 13.07.2017 and the statement of the complainant was recorded on 26.07.2017 that is after a gap of 15 days. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The recovery of the gun was from the possession of the co-accused Firoz Ansari alias Firoz Ahmad Ansari, who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2018.
Ms. Swati Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that on 26.07.2017 statement of injured Ganga Verma was recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he has stated that he has been shot by a person, namely, Badake, who is resident of village Tajpur. The statement of injured is not corroborated with the version of the FIR as well as the medical report.
Per contra learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondent has strongly opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per the statement of the witnesses, the role of the present applicant has been attributed to the firing by a firearm and injury sustained to the victim was of firearm. He further submitted that the statement given under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fully corroborates the prosecution version. The injuries caused by the applicant was on vital parts of the body, which is dangerous to life, therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and going through the record, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let applicant, Dharmendra Verma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
4. The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which he/she is suspected.
5. 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 top dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it is open to the opposite party to approach this Court for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Prajapati