Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13332 of 2019 Applicant :- Jabir Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava,Manav Chaurasia,Prem Pushp Chaurasia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. on behalf of State is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on the record.
Applicant-Jabir Ali seeks bail in Case Crime No.138 of 2017, under Sections 302, 120-B, 212 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station Mauima, District Allahabad.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by the first informant on account of enmity. According to the prosecution, the alleged incident has taken place on the dead hour of night and the deceased was murdered by some unknown assailants and they were seen running after committing murder by the first informant who is son of deceased and one Kamrul Hasan. He has further argued that Kamrul Hasan was not interrogated during investigation and the presence of the first informant at the place of incident is doubtful. He has also contended that name of unknown accused Bali Karan Saroj who was also accompanying nominated accused and committed offence surfaced during investigation and Bali Karan Saroj has been granted bail by court below. Therefore, the applicant, who is in jail since 2.1.2019, may also be enlarged on bail during trial.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for the bail and submitted that bare reading of the F.I.R. it is clear that first informant was present along with the deceased when the incident took place and his presence at the spot cannot be doubted as he has lodged the F.I.R within 35 minutes of the incident at the police station.The prosecution version of indiscriminate firing by the applicant and other accused is fully supported by the medical evidence wherein several gunshot injuries have been noted. Thus the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
In the facts and circumstances of the case,I do not find any ground to consider the prayer for bail of the applicant. The prayer for bail is declined at this stage.
The application for bail is, hereby, rejected without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 MN/-