MOHD MUSTAKIM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits filed today are 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.18 of 2009, under Sections 452, 304, 323, 504, 506/34 I.P.C., Police Station Jethwara, District Pratapgarh. As against the complicity of the applicant it is submitted that the only role attributed to him is that of causing injury to the complainant, Hameeda Begum. Learned counsel for the applicant draws the attention of the Court towards the injury report of Smt. Hameeda Begum wherein except one injury, all the injuries were found to be simple in nature. The injury which was recommended for X-ray examination was not found to be grievous because no abnormality was detected in the X-ray report (SA- 1). Learned A.G.A. points out that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as contained in the C.D. available with him, the complainant has stated that all the three persons has caused injuries to her as well as to the deceased. But it is not ascertainable that she being the first informant why at all she specifically mentioned in her report that the co-accused Mehboob Ali had beaten Zubainisha (deceased) and when she tried to intercept the applicant Mustakim started beating her (complainant). He is said to be in jail from 24.01.2009. It is claimed that in para 16 that there is no criminal history against him and this averment has not been controverted. However, the bail is 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 role assigned to the applicant as discussed hereinabove, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Mohd. Mustakim) 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.