Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19597 of 2018 Applicant :- Usman Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Premendra Kumar,Anish Kumar Singh,Pankaj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Desh Ratan Chaudhary,Nazrul Islam Jafri
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Nazrul Islam Jafri, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri S.I. Jafri, learned counsel for informant as well as Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Usman with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 93 of 2017, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 506, 326 IPC, Police Station - Kharakhauda, District - Meerut, during pendency of trial.
3. The applicant is an accused of offence of participating in unlawful assembly involved in commission of offence of murder and attempt to murder. In that incident, two persons namely Junaid and Bilaal died of gunshot wounds and two others suffered injuries ascribed to 'lathi', 'danda' and 'sariya' blows. On reading the first information report, it appears, besides role of participation in unlawful assembly, specific role of exhortation has also been ascribed to the applicant.
4. Undisputedly, the applicant has criminal history of eight other cases to his discredit.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit that there are only one each firearm injuries suffered by the two deceased, and other than role of exhortation, no other role has been ascribed to the applicant, either in the FIR or during investigation or at the trial, which is still pending.
6. Next, it has been submitted, applicant suffers from 90% locomotor disability and he has been falsely implicated in the case overlooking his disability and, therefore, his lack of participation in crime as alleged.
7. Third, it has been submitted, wholly false and frivolous cases have been lodged against the applicant in the past as well. In two of those cases, he has already been acquitted being Case Crime Nos. 178 of 2015 and 180 of 2015. Most of the other cases are stated to be offences pertaining to property. Therefore, it has been submitted, this fact itself reveals that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present offence.
8. The above submission has been opposed by learned Senior Counsel for the informant and learned AGA. They submit that the long criminal history of the applicant including involvement in offences pertaining to attempt to life and assault are still pending against the applicant. The claim of disability is only a pretence especially in the context of allegation of exhortation. Next, it has been submitted, specific role of participation in unlawful assembly for the purpose of commission of offence of exhortation has not only been made in the FIR but by referring to the statements recorded at the trial, it has been submitted that the same do not stand diluted to any extent. Last, it has been submitted, all witness of fact have been examined at the trial and only formal witness remain to be examined. Therefore, the grant of bail being made at this stage by this Court may only be counter productive to the expeditious and fair end to the trial.
9. In that regard, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit, all witness of fact having been examined, there is no risk of evidence being tampered and, therefore, the applicant is remain entitled for bail.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, insofar as the applicant is shown to have long criminal history, the claim for bail cannot be lightly allowed, keeping in mind the nature of allegations made in the present case. Then, at present, specific role of exhortation is ascribed only to the applicant and, at present, there are mere firearm injuries, it is at the exhortation by the applicant that firearm were used and blows are alleged to have been thrown at the victim with 'lathi', 'danda' and 'sariya'.
11. The applicant is found to be not entitled for bail. However, considering the fact that the applicant had not avoided the investigation and, in fact, had been arrested on 9.5.2017 and had remained confined for more than two years since then, his liberty cannot be allowed to be curtailed for indefinite period of time during trial.
12. Accordingly, the present application is rejected. However, it is expected that the trial court shall make best efforts to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today, keeping in mind the principle contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Prakhar