High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40731 of 2022 Applicant :- Harish And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Dwivedi,Imran Ullah,Pranshu Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Vakalatnama filed today by Sri V.M. Tripathi, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party is taken on record. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 285 of 2022, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 34, 307 of IPC Police Station Khandauli, District Agra, during pendency of the trial in the Court below. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged against six named accused persons, including the applicants. In the FIR it is alleged that when the informant had gone to see his field along with his son (Mahesh) and Nephew (Ashok), all the accused persons armed with a licensed rifle and some unlicensed weapons surrounded them. All the accused persons fired gun shots towards the informant, his son and nephew. One of the bullets hit the informant's nephew Ashok. Upon hearing the noise of gun shots, several villagers came towards the spot of occurrence and seeing them the accused persons ran away after threatening the informant and his son. 4. The statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., mentions that some unknown miscreants were also accompanying the accused persons and a further allegation has been levelled that when the accused persons were running away, the informant's son and one Karan also reached there and tried to stop them and the accused persons have beaten them also. 5. The site plan mentions the place where the informant's nephew Ashok was hit by a bullet and also the place where an empty cartridge was found. 6. Injury report of Vishnu mentions two lacerated wounds and that of Karan mentions a single lacerated wound suffered by him. 7. In his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant's son Mahesh stated that the accused persons had started beating Vishnu and Karan and upon coming to know about the aforesaid fact through some villagers, he along with the informant and Ashok, went towards the spot of occurrence through their vehicle and upon seeing them, the accused persons started running away. The accused persons were chased by these people whereupon the accused persons left their vehicle and started running away towards the fields. It is also stated that while running away, the accused persons fired shot and the bullet hit Ashok. He categorically stated that the gun shot which had hit Ashok, had been fired by Alok Yadav. In response to a specific question as to informant has not mentioned the name of Alok Yadav the informant's son stated that he came to know about the name of Alok Yadav subsequently. In response to a question that the FIR mentions the place of incident as village Fazilpur whereas he has shown the spot of occurrence to be different, the informant's son stated that the FIR had been written by an advocate and he does not know as to what was written in the FIR. 8. A similar statement had been given by one Vishnu Chauhan. 9. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant has no criminal history. It has also been stated in the affidavit that there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with any evidence and in such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. It is also stated in the affidavit that the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will fully cooperate in the investigation. 10. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicants annexing therewith a copy of the statement of injured Ashok, who categorically stated that the gun shot which had hit him, had been fired by one Mahendra. The only allegation in the statement against the applicants is that they had beaten up the informant and Mahesh with kicks and fists. 11. Sri Imran Ullah, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there are serious discrepancies in the version of FIR, the statements of informant, the injured persons and other witnesses recorded during investigation. However, it is consistent that the role of firing has been assigned to other co-accused person and the only allegation against the applicant of beating two persons with kicks and fists. He has further submitted that the discrepancies in the FIR and the statements regarding the place of occurrence has been explained by the witnesses by saying that the FIR had been written by an advocate and he is not aware about the contents of the same and this makes the entire prosecution case doubtful. 12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that all the accused persons had attacked the informant and other injured persons and the bail application is liable to be rejected. 13. From the record available before the Court at this stage, it appears that there are serious discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence, in the FIR and in the statements of the witnesses recording during investigation and referred to above. The aforesaid facts are sufficient to given rise to a reasonable doubt against the prosecution case for the purpose of considering the bail application. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact and without commenting on merits of the case, a case for bail is made out. 14. In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merit of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicants Harish and Satish be released on bail in Case Crime No. 285 of 2022, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 34, 307 of IPC Police Station Khandauli on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicants will not influence any witness. (iii) The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence are exempted. (iv) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 16. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail. Order Date :- 19.11.2022 S.K. Digitally signed by SWEETY KANOJIA Date: 2022.11.23 10:52:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad