Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40548 of 2018 Applicant :- Sandeep Ojha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Srivastava,Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Prakash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 11 of 2018, u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 506, 120-B, 307 IPC, P.S.
Phoolpur, District Allahabad with the prayer for enlarging him on bail.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not nominated in the F.I.R., which was lodged by the informant Siraj Ahmad against three named and one unknown, who are stated to have participated in indiscriminate firing resulting in death of Sahjade, who sustained several gun shot injuries; other two nominated accused role of hatching conspiracy has been alleged. Learned counsel further submitted that in the statement of first informant recorded next day of the incident i.e. 18.1.2018 he has reiterated version narrated by him in the F.I.R., even, in this statement he neither named the applicant nor laid any suspicion on him, however, the prosecution in order to modulate its case for the reason best known the re-statement of the first informant was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 21.1.2018; in the re-statement the first informant has stated that on the exhortation of named accused Taukir Ahmad @ Bichhi and Mohd. Sadab co-accused Manoj and the applicant fired on the deceased by pistol and Katta; similar such stand as stated by the informant in his second statement was stated by alleged eye witness Mohd. Wakil and others; it is argued that the applicant's name was introduced during investigation with an ulterior motive and no reliance at this stage can be placed on the re- statement of the first informant and other eye witnesses regarding participation of the applicant in the present case, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. It is further stated that case of the applicant is distinguishable from other co-accused named in the F.I.R.
Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that specific role of firing has been assigned to the applicant and Manoj Tiwari. However, he could not offer any plausible explanation as to why the name of the applicant did not find place in the F.I.R. especially when the first informant himself claims to be an eye witness and it was a broad day light incident. Learned counsel for the informant further submitted that the applicant has criminal history to which counsel for the applicant submitted that all criminal cases alleged against the applicant are petty in nature and its proper explanation has been given in the supplementary affidavit.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let the applicant Sandeep Ojha involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 Dhirendra/