ANISH ALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the learned Additional Government Advocate. I have also gone through the contents of the F.I.R, the bail rejection order, the injury reports of the injured and the counter and rejoinder affidavits exchanged between the parties. In the counter affidavit it has been averred that there is long standing criminal history of the applicant. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that all these cases have seen the light of the day after the murder of his son in the year 2007. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that a case being case crime No. 307-A of 2008 was lodged at police station Kandhai, district Pratapgarh against the informant along with three other accused persons. In reply, it has been averred in the counter affidavit that said case crime number was lodged after knowledge of the lodging of the FIR by the complainant with mala fide intentions and on false and fabricated facts. Considering the above facts and particularly the facts that enmity is going on between the parties; that there are criminal antecedents of the applicant; two accused persons who are named in the F.I.R are still absconding; and also the accusation and severity of the punishment, I do not find it a fit case for bail. Application for bail is accordingly rejected.