Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56831 of 2019 Applicant :- Nazim Alias Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Counsel for Applicant :- Rizwan Ahmad(Qureshi) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Rizwan Ahmad (Qureshi), learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for the informant (upon appearance filed today) as well as Sri Abhishek Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Nazim @ Raju with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 151 of 2019, under Sections 307 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Galshaheed, District-Moradabad, during pendency of trial.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant states that in exact similar allegations, co-accused Danish @ Lala has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38978 of 2019 vide order dated 11.11.2019. As to criminal history, it has been submitted, though earlier two criminal cases were lodged by relative of the present informant, the applicant has already been acquitted in both cases.
4. The bail application of the applicant has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant, who would submit that no parity may be claimed by the applicant with the co-accused Danish @ Lala, inasmuch as, he has been accused of causing hurt to Junaid, who received simple injury on his shoulder whereas the applicant is accused of having caused firearm injury in the chest region. Then, reference has been made to the supplementary injury report to suggest that the injury was life threatening.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, it does appear that, earlier, the applicant had been accused of offences by related parties wherein he had been acquitted. Next, as to the present case, no parity may be claimed by the applicant, inasmuch as, specific role has been assigned to the applicant of having caused injury to the vital body part. Then, the supplementary injury report, at present, does indicate that bullet was removed from deep inside chest and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage.
6. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
7. In the meanwhile, it is expected that the learned courts below may take up the matter with expedition both for the consideration of committal, as also, for framing of charge, if any, so that such stage of proceeding may be completed within a period of four months from today.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Prakhar