AADIL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Bharat Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri A.S. Parihar, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of complainant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Furkhan. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the role of firing has been assigned to the Furkhan, whereas in the statement of alleged eye-witnesses the role of firing has been assigned to co-accused persons Ziyaul and Furkhan. It is further submitted that neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statements of informant and alleged eye-witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. any role of firing has been assigned to the present applicant. It is further submitted that except two fire arm injury no other injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased. The applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no criminal history except the case registered in the Gangster Act on the basis of the present F.I.R. that too subsequent to the arrest of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.01.2021.

(3.) On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, particularly that no role of firing has been assigned to the applicant either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the witnesses.