JAMAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNTER 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.690 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Phool Behar, District Kheri. As against the genuineness of the prosecution case and proposed evidence it is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of village enmity. An old litigation was going on between Izhaar, Mazhar, Athar and the complainant. The brother of Izhar was killed a year ago and this enmity finds mention in the F.I.R. also. As far as the applicant is concerned, it is submitted that he did not have any enmity whatsoever with the deceased. Since he had a family friendship with Izhaar and their family members therefore he has also roped in. It is further submitted that unfortunately place of occurrence is said to be just near the house of the applicant which attracted the prosecution as well as the complainant believing that the accused-applicant was also involved in the alleged crime. But as a matter of fact he was working in the field. It is also pointed out that the applicant and co-accused Izhaar have been assigned with lathi only and there are only two lathi injuries mentioned in the post mortem report. Out of them only one was grievous. The deceased appears to have died on account of serious fire arm injury and incised wounds which were many in numbers as the perusal of the post mortem report show. It is further added that the battery or the motorcycle which was being allegedly carried by the deceased could not be recovered from the place of occurrence. Lastly it is submitted that the applicant's case is distinguishable from the other co-accused. There is no criminal history against him. He is said to be in jail from 12.08.2008. 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 fact that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the other co- accused, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail on heavy sureties and on some condition. Let the applicant (Jamal) be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.40,000/- and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/court concerned. It is further provided that if the applicant does not cooperate with the trial or absents himself without any sufficient cause his bail may be cancelled by the court below.