PREM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused record. The applicant is involved in Case Crime No.488 of 2008, under Sections 302, 307, 323, 147, 148, 149, 506 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act, Police Station Sadarpur, District Sitapur. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that in the F.I.R. Farsa was assigned to the applicant and co- accused Pratap (non-applicant) who has already been enlarged on bail. According to the prosecution story they suddenly struck Farsa on the head of the deceased lady and when her niece Renu came to her rescue she was also beaten by lathi and danda by other co-accused. But her injury report shows an incised wound caused by sharp cutting object which creates doubt, it is submitted. Further it is urged that in her statement, Renu has said that both Prem and Pratap were having some iron object with which they struck on the head of the deceased. But there is only one incised wound measuring 1 cm X 3 cm X bone deep. It is said that the injury could not have been caused by Farsa and that is why at a subsequent stage in place of Farsa one axe was introduced in the statements. Co-accused Pratap having similar allegation against him, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court's order dated 06.03.2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.970 (B) of 2009. It is also said that at the most case will fall within the periphery of Section 304 part II. He is said to be in jail from 08.07.2008. It is said that there is no criminal history against him. The bail is however, opposed by learned A.G.A. The points pertaining to nature of accusation, danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, character, behaviour and position of the accused, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without entering into the merits of the case and particularly having regard to the ground of parity, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Prem) be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/court concerned.