Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2308 of 2019 Applicant :- Narendra Gurjar @ Fauji Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Srivastava, ,Anoop Trivedi,Raghubir Singh,Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Ojha,Pankaj Kumar Singh,Vinay Saran
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Supplementary and rejoinder affidavits filed in Court today, are taken on record.
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, Sri Pulak Ganguly, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material brought on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 461/2017, under Sections 120-B, 307, 302, 34 IPC, police station Khoda, District Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been argued by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The incident in question is alleged to have taken place on 02.09.2017 at 13:15 hours, whereas FIR has been lodged on 3.09.2017 at 10:00 AM and that applicant was not named in the FIR. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in his first statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., complainant has made improvements and alleged that one Jani, Bittu and Bora Thakur have also boarded alleged vehicle, but even in that statement, the applicant was not named and that it was for the first time in third statement of complainant that applicant was named. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that complainant has changed his version his in every statement. Alleged witness Gulab Singh was also introduced later on, while he was not cited as a witness in the FIR. It was further submitted that injured witness Balbeer Singh Chauhan has made reference to CCTV footage, but as per CCTV footage, the identification of the applicant has not been established. Learned Senior counsel argued that alleged recovery of country made pistol and four live cartridges, shown from applicant is false and baseless and is not supported by any independent witness and that applicant was lifted from his home and in that regard, telegram was sent to higher authorities by his wife. The supplementary statement of informant has been recorded after lapse of 40 days of incident and that applicant was falsely nominated as accused. Similarly, statement of other alleged eye witnesses have also been recorded after long delay. If the applicant was seen at the spot by alleged witnesses, there were no reasons that why they would not named the applicant in the FIR itself. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that applicant is working as PSO of Ex. MLA Amarpal Sharma, who is accused in the present case and due to long prevailing enmity between deceased and Amarpal Sharma, applicant was falsely implicated in this case. It was also pointed out that as per details of CCTV footage, alleged miscreant was shown wearing helmet and thus, it was not possible to identify them. It was further submitted that co-accused Amarpal Sharma, who is named in the FIR, has already been enlarged on bail by another Bench of this Court and that co-accused Rajkumar alias Raju Pehalwan, who is alleged to have involved in the incident along with applicant, has also been granted bail by another Bench of this Court. Regarding criminal history of applicant, it was submitted that one case under Section 302/34 has been shown against the applicant, but in that case, applicant was not named in the FIR and he was granted bail by the High Court. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that applicant is in judicial custody since 10.09.2017 and that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have strongly opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in the FIR, it was alleged that two unknown persons have committed this incident, but during investigation, involvement of accused-applicant has been established. It was stated that one of the eye witness of the incident is injured Balbeer Singh Chauhan, who has sustained injuries in the same incident and that he has mentioned in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that it was applicant, who has fired at deceased and also caused firearm injuries to him. It was submitted that besides statement of Balbeer Singh Chauhan, other witnesses Gulab Singh, Bittu alias Mohit Kumar and Suresh Sharma have also named applicant. So far bail of co-accused Amarpal Sharma is concerned, it was submitted that he was not shown at the spot. It was further pointed out that the role of firing has been attributed to the applicant and that no firing was attributed to co-accused Rajkumar alias Raju Pehalwan, which is also discernible from bail order of co-accused Rajkumar alias Raju Pehalwan and therefore, role of applicant is distinguished from that of co-accused Rajkumar alias Raju Pehalwan. It was further argued that applicant is also having criminal history of one murder case and that in view of all these facts, applicant is not entitled for bail. It has also been submitted that incident is quite daring as murder of deceased has been committed in day light, wherein several rounds of firing was made at the deceased and firearm injuries were also caused to injured.
After considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, looking into the seriousness of the allegations, gravity of the offence, severity of the punishment, specific role attributed to the applicant as well as criminal history of applicant and also considering all attending facts and circumstances of the case, no case for grant of bail is made out.
Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Anand