Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29483 of 2021 Applicant :- Pushpendra @ Baba Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Daya Shanker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 965/2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B IPC, police station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that in FIR informant has alleged that applicant Pushpendra @ Baba as well as co- accused Kapil and Harish have fired at deceased and Kalu, whereas in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., informant has stated that only applicant has fired and thus, there is contradiction between version of FIR and statement of first informant. Learned counsel has given much thrust to the argument that alleged incident has been shown of about 9:40 PM and there is nothing to indicate that there was any source of light at the spot, hence, the involvement of applicant is thoroughly doubtful. It was further submitted that applicant has no motive to commit the murder of deceased. It was submitted that co-accused Narendra has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court, copy of which has been produced and the same is taken on record. It was submitted that the criminal history of two cases shown against the applicant, has been duly explained in the affidavit accompanying the bail application. It has further been argued that the applicant is in judicial custody since 29.05.2020 and that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is named in the FIR. Learned A.G.A. has referred the statements of first informant and other eye witnesses, who have clearly stated that it was applicant Pushpendra @ Baba, who has opened fired upon the deceased and that deceased has died of firearm injury. It was further submitted that applicant cannot claim parity with co-accused Narendra as the role of firing has been attributed to the applicant and that in the bail order of co- accused Narendra, the role of applicant has also been distinguished.
Perusal of record shows that applicant is named in FIR and that the role of firing at deceased has been attributed to applicant. Eye witnesses have also stated that applicant has fired at deceased and that the deceased has sustained one firearm entry wound and one firearm exit wound. The case of applicant has also been distinguished in the bail order of co-accused Narendra and it was observed that role of firing at deceased has been attributed to applicant.
After considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, looking into the seriousness of the allegations, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment and considering all attending facts and circumstances of the case, no case for grant of bail is made out.
Accordingly, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicant Pushpendra @ Baba is rejected.
Order Date :- 23.9.2021/Anand