Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39956 of 2019 Applicant :- Jamshed Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Tomar,Ankur Varshney Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri H.P. Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against against unknown person alleging that Shabbir was killed by shot fire on 16.12.2016. During investigation, the names of Waseem Ahmad, Sahil, Naushad and Jamshed were surfaced. Main role to shot fire on deceased is assigned to Waseem. Waseem and Sahil have been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.4 vide order dated 13.3.2018 in Session Trial No. 232 of 2017. Deceased was died receiving one gun shot injury.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is a labour and residing outside the State of U.P. He was not aware of the case and when this fact came to his knowledge he surrendered before the court and is languishing in jail since 10.6.2019 (more than three months) having no criminal history. The applicant has been falsely implicated. Even though main co-accused Waseem and Sahil have been acquitted by the competent court. Hence, there is no legal and cogent evidence against the applicant. There is no recovery at the pointing out of the applicant. Co-accused-Naushad has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.1.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1853 of 2019 and the case of the applicant is identical to the case of co- accused who has already been enlarged on bail, hence the applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. There is no independent witness/eye witness account and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history and also admitted that the case of the present applicant is identical to the case of co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, 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 opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Jamshed involved in S.T. No. 198 of 2019, Case Crime No. 675 of 2016, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Kandhala, District-Shamli 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 applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant 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 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 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.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 OP