YOUNIS ALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail.

(2.) Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, counsel for the petitioner submits that in the statement made by the injured Mr. Arif under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he has accused Mohd. Islam and Rashid as the main persons who had hit him with the base ball bat and no accusation was made so far as the present petitioner is concerned. Counsel further submits that cross FIR was lodged by the petitioner under Section 325 of IPC against the complainant and his son. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that all the co-accused persons have already been enlarged either on regular bail or granted anticipatory bail. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the bail of the other co-accused persons were also opposed by the State prosecutor on the ground that they were involved hitting the injured Arif and now the petitioner is also being accused of hitting the said injured person.

(3.) Strongly opposing the bail application Mr. Sanjay Lao APP for the State submits that the present FIR was lodged on the complaint made by the father of the injured i.e. namely. Mr. Saifuddin who in his complaint clearly accused the present petitioner hitting his son Arif with the cemented tile stone resulting into injuries on the head of the injured due to which the injured got 72 stitches. Counsel also submits that the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have already been initiated against the petitioner. Counsel also submits that on 9.3.2009 the IO went to record the statement of the injured but as per the Medical opinion he was not fit for statement but without taking any medical opinion his statement was taken on 10.3.2009 by the IO. The contention of the counsel for the state is that still the injured person was not fit to give a statement. Counsel also submits that the other two accused persons i.e. Rashid and Islam remained in JC for a period of 40 days while the petitioner has been absconding.