AIJAZ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused record. The applicant is involved in Case Crime No.104 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Pipar Pur, District Sultanpur. As against the genuineness of the prosecution case and proposed evidence it is submitted that the incident is of night at 2.30 A.M. It is also said that the deceased had a criminal history of 21 cases he was killed by some unknown persons but his brother lodged the report naming the applicant and four other persons who are related with each other because Farooq Ahmad had lodged a criminal case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. Police Station Pipar Pur, district Sultanpur against the present informant Kamal and Ishtiaq. It is further submitted that in the statement of the first informant and other witness Mushtaq Ahmad it is no where specifically mentioned as to which of the 5 accused were wielding knife and Gandasa. There are only three injuries to the deceased and the cause of death was found to be head injury. But it is not ascertainable as to who was the author of that fatal injury, it is submitted. It is also submitted that though in the F.I.R. it is specifically mentioned that the incident was witnessed in the electric light but as per information furnished by the electricity supply division under the Right to Information Act that in the intervening night of 17/18.03.2008 from 2.21 A.M. till 10.00 A.M. there was no electricity supply in that area. Further it is urged that another basis of the complicity of the applicant is said to be confessional statement of co-accused Mohd. Istiyaq but in that also the main role of causing injuries with knife has been assigned to co-accused Mohd. Isa and Ansar (both non- applicants) and causing of injuries by means of Gandasa has been attributed to Maqsood alias Nanhey (non-applicants). Therefore, it is also said that the case of the applicant is distinguishable. It is also said that on these grounds co-accused Farooq Ahmad having similar allegation against him, has already been granted bail by this Court vide (Annexure-8). The applicant is in jail from May, 2008. 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 (Aijaz Ahmad) 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.