Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25237 of 2019 Applicant :- Nadeem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani, Advocate on behalf of the informant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has not committed present offence. Informant and other witnesses interrogated by the investigating officer during investigation are not eyewitness account. At this stage, learned counsel has referred to the statement of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as the site plan prepared by the investigating officer and argued that the investigating officer himself has not shown the place in the site plan where the witnesses claimed themselves to be present on the spot. It is next submitted that the co-accused Iqbal has been enlarged on bail in this matter by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.3.2019 passed in criminal misc. bail application no.39532 of 2018. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant of causing firearm injury. At this stage, learned counsel has referred to the contents of the F.I.R. and argued that there is general allegation levelled against the applicant. Referring to the postmortem report, it is further contended that only one firearm injury was found on the body of the deceased. Role assigned to the applicant is not distinguishable to such extent only on the basis of recovery of firearm weapon from the possession of the applicant to deny him from bail. Weapon said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant is also not connected with the present crime. It is not clear as to whether said weapon was used in commission of present crime or not. Thus, referring to the date of detention i.e. 22.3.2018 and the bail order passed in respect of co-accused, prayer for bail has been made.
On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that there is recovery against the applicant of firearm weapon said to have been used in commission of the present crime. One F.I.R. had already been lodged against the applicant for the offence under section 326 IPC. Although, applicant has been enlarged on bail, but due to that reason he has committed the present offence. Applicant is named in the F.I.R. Specific role has been assigned to him. If he will be released on bail, he will again commit offence against the informant's side. Since co-accused Iqbal was an old aged person, his prayer for bail was allowed. Applicant is not entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Nadeem involved in Case Crime No. 83 of 2018 under Sections 452, 504, 506, 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
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 prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 25.6.2019 ss