TAZAMMUL HASAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a bail application seeking regular bail in Case Crime No. 469 of 2012, Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 302, 307 of I.P.C., P.S. Manglore, District Haridwar. Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Parikshit Saini, counsel appearing for the applicant submits that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant, therefore, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. She further submits that deceased - Farooq was the accused in the murder of real brother of present applicant, therefore, there was an old enmity between the parties, consequently, present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Ms. Joshi further submits that initially, injured Jabbar in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 01.12.2012, did not state that applicant also came on the spot. However, in his subsequent statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has named the applicant it shows that he has falsely implicated the applicant.

(2.) AS per the prosecution story on 01.12.2012 deceased Farooq and injured Jabbar were participating in the marriage of son of Salim at Manglore; accused Kamil and Shahbul had some quarrel with Farooq and left the place saying they would see Farooq; thereafter Kamil, Shahbul, Kamar Alam, present applicant Tazammul Hasan and Nafisul Hasan @ Guddu came on the spot together with common object to kill Farooq in the marriage party of son of Saleem in the presence of so many people in broad day light at about 01:15 p.m. Kamar Alam had fired on Farooq, Farooq fell down, injured Jabbar tried to save Farooq then fire was also made on the Jabbar and thereafter all the five accused left the place of occurrence together; Farooq died due to firearm injuries while Jabbar also received firearm injuries.

(3.) MURDER of Farooq was committed in broad day light in the presence of so many people participating in marriage ceremony. Jabbar also received firearm injures. At this stage statement of Jabbar injured and other eye witnesses are sufficient to hold that present applicant was actively present on the spot with common object to commit serious crime of human slaughtering. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to enlarge present applicant on bail.