Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38377 of 2019 Applicant :- Jile Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh,Abhishek Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for informant, learned A.G.A. appearing for State and perused the record.
This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Jile Singh for grant of anticipatory bail during the course of investigation in Case Crime No. 583 of 2019, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bazaar, District Saharanpur.
Learned counsel for applicant argued that accused applicant is innocent. Accusation against him is not of assault, except of showing revolver with a view to extension of force, whereas no such occurrence ever occurred. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is of no criminal antecedent. Therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for informant and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail with this contention that it is an accusation, wherein a Clerk of office has committed this occurrence with his Junior Engineer in office, while he was busy in performance of his official functions. He entered in office with revolver, abused, thrashed and showed revolver to his Junior Engineer with intention to kill, but in between other staff intervened and informant save himself. Hence, bail be rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for both side and gone through first information report, it is apparent that instant report of the occurrence was lodged by Rohit Kumar, Junior Engineer, against his own clerk Jile Singh for alleged offence, which was committed with him in his office, while he was busy in his official functions that too with a view to hamper a work, which was to be taken by Junior Engineer in performance of his official duty. Presence of applicant with revolver is said to be recorded in C.C.T.V. footage.
Under all above facts and circumstances, there is no case for anticipatory bail.
The anticipatory bail is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 27.9.2019 NS