High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38753 of 2022 Applicant :- Ishtiyaq Ansari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikash Kumar Tiwari,Pulak Ganguly Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,R S Dubey,Savita Dubey,Shailendra Singh Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Pulak Ganguly, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. R S Dubey, the learned counsel for first informant. 2. Perused the record. 3. Instant bail application has been filed by applicant-Ishtiyaq Ansari seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 336 of 2022 under Sections 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. , Police Station- Kotwali, District-Deoria, during the pendency of trial. 4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 04.05.2022, a prompt F.I.R. dated
Facts
05.05.2022 was lodged by first informant-Sadrun Nisha (widow of deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No. 336 of 2022 under Sections 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. , Police Station- Kotwalo, District-Deoria,. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons namely Ishtiyaq Ansari (applicant herein), Jainoob Khatun and Kajma (sister of applicant) have been nominated as named accused. 5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that on account of assault committed by Ishtiyaq Ansari (applicant herein) with lathi on the head of Wakeel Ansari, he sustained grievous injury. He was taken to Distinct Hospital Deoria. Since the condition of injured-Wakeel Ansari was critical, therefore, he was referred to B.R.D. Medical College Gorakhpur. Injured-Wakeel Ansari succumbed to the injury sustained by him while he was undergoing treatment at aforesaid Medical College. 6. The Inquest (Panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted on 05.05.2022 on the information given by the Ward Boy of aforesaid Medical College. In the opinion of witnesses of inquest (panch witnesses), the nature of death of deceased was characterised as homicidal. Subsequent to above, post- mortem of the body of deceased was conducted. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy of the body of deceased found following ante mortem injuries on his body: I. Abraded contusion 8.5 cm x 4..5 cm on the tip of Lt shoulder joint Reddish in colour Advised-X-ray Lt shoulder joint. II. Abraded contusion 7.0 cm x 2.0 cm on the mid part of Rt. scapula reddish in colour Adv.-X-ray. III. Abrasaion 5.0 cm x 2.0 cm on lateral aspect of Rt. side leg reddish brown in colour. IV. Abraded contusion .5 cm x 0.5 cm rt side lateral eye Reddish colour-Adv.-X-Ray. 7. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of deceased was "Comma" as a result of ante mortem injuries. 8. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant-Sadrun Nisha under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who has supported the F.IR. 9. It is apposite to mention here that named accused Jainoob Nisha filed an applicant under 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against first informant. Photocopy of same is on record as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. 10. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer also examined other witnesses, who have also supported the F.I.R. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of applicant and other named accused is established in the crime in question. He, therefore, opined to submit a charge sheet. Accordingly he submitted the charge sheet dated 05.06.2022 whereby applicant has been charge-sheet under Section 304, 504, 506 I.P.C. whereas two other named accused have been charge-sheet under Section 504, 506 I.P.C.
Legal Reasoning
by deceased therefore, no sympathy be shown by this court in favour of applicant. On the aforesaid premise, they jointly submits present applicant for bail is liable to be rejected. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon consideration of evidence on record, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that there are cross cases in respect of same occurrence, the issue as to who is the aggressor is subject to trial evidence but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail. 14. Accordingly, present application for bail is allowed. 15. Let the applicant-Ishtiyaq Ansari involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence. (ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 16. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant and send him to prison Order Date :- 22.12.2022 YK Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
11. Mr. Pulak Ganguly, the learned counsel for applicant submits that though the applicant is a named as well as charge- sheeted accused but he is innocent, the occurrence, which is alleged to have occurred on 04.05.2022, three persons from the side of applicant also sustained injuries i.e. applicant himself, his brother Mustaq and his Mother Jainoob Nisha. Their injury reports are on record at pages 48, 49 and 50 of the paper book. With reference to above, he submits that since both sides have received injuries, therefore, the issue which is required to be adjudicated upon is as to who is the aggressor. The said issue is a triable issue and can be effectively decided at the time of trial. Prima facie, it cannot be said that applicant is guilty of committing the crime in question. It is then contended that in respect of same incident, named accused filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which was decided by court below on 09.12.2022 and the application under Section 156 (3) was treated as a complaint. It is then contended that even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal histroy except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 05.05.2022. As such, he has undergone more than seven and a half months of incarceration. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial. Charge-sheet having been submitted against applicant, therefore, the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant, stands crystallised. As such, custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary during the course of trial. On the cumulative strength of above, learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail 12. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and the learned counsel for first informant, have jointly opposed the present application for bail. They submit that since applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused, therefore, he does deserve any indulgence by this Court. They also contend that since applicant alone is the author of the fatal head injury sustained