Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36318 of 2021 Applicant :- Muzahid Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rizwan Ahamad
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over bail application moved by accused-applicant, Muzahid, in Case Crime No. 857 of 2020, under Sections 302, 120B, 34 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahar.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused- applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 27.09.2020; he is of no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail; first information report was delayed, which was got registered on 23.09.2020 at 11.26 AM, whereas, occurrence was of 22.09.2020 at 9.00 PM.; this was registered by Danish Ali against Mujahid and one other unknown; informant is not an eye witness account of the occurrence; he has said occurrence to be witnessed by Amir, who apprised instantly about his occurrence and informant rushed at spot and carried injured to hospital for treatment, then after to Meerut, but he succumbed to injuries; subsequent development was involvement of other accused persons, who happens to be relative of applicant, but in the charge-sheet, no witness with regard to applicant's accusation is there; supplementary statement is there, but previous one is not there in case diary as has been written in bail order of bail application of co-accused Sadim, which was decided after counter and rejoinder affidavits filed by both sides; it was an elaborate order; previous enmity is there; it is a false implication. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA has vehemently opposed with this contention that injured was instantly taken to hospital and it was written in F.I.R. itself that deceased was taken to Bulandshahr district hospital, from where referred to Meerut hospital, but he could not be saved and then after keeping the dead body in mortuary, this report was got lodged, hence under above pretext, it was instantly reported; applicant was named in it; previous enmity supported with documentary evidence wherein offence of theft was got registered in the month of May, 2021 against the applicant is there, which was said to be criminal trespass in the house under the affairs with Shiva wife of deceased, but owing to family reputation, this was got registered as an offence of theft, but it was the offence of criminal trespass in the house related with affairs of Shiva wife of deceased; motive of this offence is there; other links are also there; co-accused Shiva, in her confessional statement to Amir, has admitted to commit this offence under the connivance and assistance of the applicant and other co-accused; it was an extra judicial confession of Shiva made to Amir and same is in case diary; inquest and autopsy examination report reveals death owing to ante mortem gunshot injuries, wherein many injuries of wound of entry coupled with other injuries are there, hence, there is every likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case released on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through materials on record as well as considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, para-1 has held that "The society has a vital interest in grant or refusal of bail because every criminal offence is the offence against the State. The order granting or refusing bail must reflect perfect balance between the conflicting interests, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and the interest of the society. The law of bails dovetails two conflicting interests namely, on the one hand, the requirements of shielding the society from the hazards of those committing crimes and potentiality of repeating the same crime while on bail and on the other hand absolute adherence of the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding presumption of innocence of an accused until he is found guilty and the sanctity of individual liberty", but without commenting on merits of the case, there appears to be no ground for bail.
Accordingly, this Bail Application stands rejected.
Order Date :- 27.10.2021 Dhirendra/