MUSHTAQ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second bail application moved on behalf of the appellant Mushtaq. His first bail application has been rejected as not pressed on 19.3.2012 by another bench of this court . The co -accused Farooq and Sohrab have been released on bail in connected Criminal Appeal No. 2177 of 2011.

(2.) THE appellant, co -accused Farooq and Sohrab have been convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Pratapgarh on 13.12.2011 in S.T. No. 7 of 1986 connected with S.T. No. 8 of 1986 for the offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. According to the prosecution version the FIR of this case has been lodged by Ahmad Ulla P.W. 1 on 29.4.1985 at 1.30 P.M. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 29.4.1985 at about 12.30 O'clock in day in a varanda of the court of Civil Judge Pratapgarh. The FIR was lodged under section 307/34 IPC, but after the death of the deceased Hamid Ali, the case was converted under section 302/34 IPC on 29.4.1985 at about 12.00 in the case of Mohd. Hanif Vs. Mustaq. The witness Abdul Sattar was going to give evidence in the court of Civil Judge, Pratapgarh. On call given from the court Abdul Sattar along with his father deceased Hamid Ali, his brother Rahmat Ulla and Mohd. Hanif were going to the court. The appellant Mushtaq, co -accused Farooq and Sohrab were already present in the varanada and they asked to Abdul Sattar not to give evidence, deceased asked them who were armed by the licensed gun not to intercept the witness then some altercation has taken place and the appellant Mushtaq discharged the shot by his country made pistol which hit on the stomach of the deceased Hamid Ali. After sustaining the injuries the deceased fell down, his gun and cartridges were also dropped, the same were taken by the first informant, the appellant and other co -accused supported snatching the gun in scuffling accidently a shot was discharged from the gun of the deceased consequently persons present there including the appellant Mushtaq sustained injury. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had sustained a fire arm injury. The injury of the appellant has already been explained. During course of the trial the witness Abdul Sattar and Himasuddin have died. In support of the prosecution version eleven witnesses have been examiend and in respect of the injury sustained by the appellant Mushtaq no FIR has been registered. The alleged occurrence has taken place in a varanda of the court room. The active role of causing the injury has been assigned to the appellant. The appellant was apprehended on the spot along with country made pistol. The gravity of the offence is too much. In such circumstances, the appellant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY this bail application is dismissed.