High Court

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sheikh Wali Uz Zaman, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 349 of 2024, under sections 395/397 of the I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District -Pratapgarh. As per the prosecution story, the first information report was lodged by the complainant, Mohd. Siddique, S/of late Abdul Razzaq on 24-06-2024 at Police Station-Kotwali City, district-Pratapgarh while alleging that on 24-06-2024 at about 11.15 A.M., his nephew, Mohd. Asif, S/o Mohd. Farooq was present at Adhat and due to rivalry, the present applicant including the other co-accused persons, while attacking, had opened fire over the injured and the injured had received serious injuries. It has also been alleged that in the incident, which is said to be occurred on 18-06- 2024 and the applicant was allegedly involved and his name has been implicated in the present matter, which is said to be occurred on 24-06- 2024. Further the amount of Rs. 19,000/- was looted and while waving the weapons and hurling the abuses, the injured persons were threatened to be killed. applicant the present Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that some incident had taken place in between the parties on 18-06-2024 and on the basis of suspicion and anonymity, the name has been placed/implicated in the first information report, which is lodged for alleged incident dated 24-06- 2024. He next added that the statement of the injured demolishes the story of the prosecution as he stated that the present applicant opened fire over the injured, though the nature of the injuries says otherwise, as two lacerated wounds and incised wounds are present over the body of the injured. The details of the injuries are mentioned as follows :-

1. L.W. 8 cm x 2 cm bone deep over right side of skull, 9 cm above right ear,bleeding present.

2. I.W. 1.6 cm x 0.4 cm bone deep over root of nose, bleeding present. KUO.

3. L.W. 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep over right side back of skull, bleeding present K.U.O. He further argued that it seems that the injured has received injuries otherwise than the incident, which is said to have occurred on 24-06-2024 and the statement of the injured is apparent that the applicant was not involved in looting the money. He also submits that the applicant has two cases criminal history, which has been explained in paragraph no. 21 of the bail application and the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would threaten the witnesses or would tamper the evidences. He also added that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 06-07-2024. Further submitted that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that from bare perusal of the first information report,there are serious allegations against the present applicant including the other co-accused persons and the injured has received serious injuries, which is evident from the injury report. He next submits that anticipatory bail application of one of the co-accused person, has been rejected by the coordinate Bench of this court and the applicant has two cases criminal history and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Learned AGA appearing for the State has also supported the version of the learned counsel for the complainant and submits that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant is involved in committing the offence and as such, he is not entitled for bail. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that though the applicant is named in the first information report, but, so far as the statement of the complainant, namely, Mohd. Siddique is concerned, it transpires that the applicant had opened fire over the injured, but, the injury report belies the story of the prosecution. This court has also taken note of the fact that the applicant has explained two cases criminal history and as per the statement of the injured, he did not loot the money, as is alleged in the first information report. Further the applicant is languishing in jail since 06-07-2024; the chargesheet has been filed and the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant-Khurseed Ahmad involved in the aforementioned crime 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:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing or otherwise during the the witnesses, investigation or trial; (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; (4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 AKS

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sheikh Wali Uz Zaman, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 349 of 2024, under sections 395/397 of the I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District -Pratapgarh. As per the prosecution story, the first information report was lodged by the complainant, Mohd. Siddique, S/of late Abdul Razzaq on 24-06-2024 at Police Station-Kotwali City, district-Pratapgarh while alleging that on 24-06-2024 at about 11.15 A.M., his nephew, Mohd. Asif, S/o Mohd. Farooq was present at Adhat and due to rivalry, the present applicant including the other co-accused persons, while attacking, had opened fire over the injured and the injured had received serious injuries. It has also been alleged that in the incident, which is said to be occurred on 18-06- 2024 and the applicant was allegedly involved and his name has been implicated in the present matter, which is said to be occurred on 24-06- 2024. Further the amount of Rs. 19,000/- was looted and while waving the weapons and hurling the abuses, the injured persons were threatened to be killed. applicant the present Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that some incident had taken place in between the parties on 18-06-2024 and on the basis of suspicion and anonymity, the name has been placed/implicated in the first information report, which is lodged for alleged incident dated 24-06- 2024. He next added that the statement of the injured demolishes the story of the prosecution as he stated that the present applicant opened fire over the injured, though the nature of the injuries says otherwise, as two lacerated wounds and incised wounds are present over the body of the injured. The details of the injuries are mentioned as follows :-

1. L.W. 8 cm x 2 cm bone deep over right side of skull, 9 cm above right ear,bleeding present.

2. I.W. 1.6 cm x 0.4 cm bone deep over root of nose, bleeding present. KUO.

3. L.W. 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep over right side back of skull, bleeding present K.U.O. He further argued that it seems that the injured has received injuries otherwise than the incident, which is said to have occurred on 24-06-2024 and the statement of the injured is apparent that the applicant was not involved in looting the money. He also submits that the applicant has two cases criminal history, which has been explained in paragraph no. 21 of the bail application and the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would threaten the witnesses or would tamper the evidences. He also added that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 06-07-2024. Further submitted that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that from bare perusal of the first information report,there are serious allegations against the present applicant including the other co-accused persons and the injured has received serious injuries, which is evident from the injury report. He next submits that anticipatory bail application of one of the co-accused person, has been rejected by the coordinate Bench of this court and the applicant has two cases criminal history and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Learned AGA appearing for the State has also supported the version of the learned counsel for the complainant and submits that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant is involved in committing the offence and as such, he is not entitled for bail. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that though the applicant is named in the first information report, but, so far as the statement of the complainant, namely, Mohd. Siddique is concerned, it transpires that the applicant had opened fire over the injured, but, the injury report belies the story of the prosecution. This court has also taken note of the fact that the applicant has explained two cases criminal history and as per the statement of the injured, he did not loot the money, as is alleged in the first information report. Further the applicant is languishing in jail since 06-07-2024; the chargesheet has been filed and the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant-Khurseed Ahmad involved in the aforementioned crime 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:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing or otherwise during the the witnesses, investigation or trial; (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; (4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 AKS