Court No. - 31
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48177 of 2018 Applicant :- Vipul @ Khunni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Sharma,Garun Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 149 of 2017, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, and 120-B IPC, police station Gangoh, District- Saharanpur, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
As per prosecution version on 31.03.2017 three persons came at the house of the deceased Rakesh Bala, who was village Pradhan, and fired at the deceased. When the complainant objected, he was also hit at his head.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, that he was not named in the FIR nor his TIP was conducted; that statement of Ankit, who was present at the spot, has not been recorded during investigation but his name was shown as a witness in the charge sheet; that co-accused Praveen had named the applicant but his statement cannot be read against the applicant; that nothing was recovered from the applicant; that the car used in the alleged incident also does not belong to the applicant; that there was no eye witness of the alleged incident and that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the Police just to show their good work. It was further argued that in most of the cases, shown in the criminal history of the applicant, he is on bail and in some cases he has been acquitted. It was further argued that co-accused Praveen has been granted bail by another bench of this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24769 of 2017 as co-accused Sidakram @ Kala has been granted bail vide order dated 12.03.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7146 of 2018 and the case of the applicant is on the similar footing with them.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail and argued that the case relates to serious incident of the murder of a lady, who was village Pradhan; that sufficient evidence has been collected during investigation and that the eye witness were present at the scene of the offence. It was further argued that applicant has criminal history of 24 cases of serious offences and thus he is not entitled for any parity with the co-accused persons.
The case relates to day light murder of a lady, who was village Pradhan. There is criminal history of 24 cases, which included the cases of robbery, attempt to murder, gangster Act and murder, against the applicant. It is correct that in few cases he was shown acquitted and in some cases he is on bail but it is clear that the applicant accused has long criminal history of heinous offences. In view of these facts, bail can not be granted merely on the ground of parity. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record and also looking into the seriousness of the allegations, criminal history of applicant, gravity of the offence and severity of the punishment, no case for grant of bail is made out.
Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 18.12.2018 Ujjawal