The Court granted bail to Parvez Ahmad in a case under Section 302 IPC. The court concluded the applicant is entitled to release based on record examination, allowing him to furnish a personal bond.
Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43435 of 2018
Applicant :- Parvez Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Mabood Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant, Pervez Ahmad, who is involved in Case Crime No. 980 of 2017, under Section 302, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Rampur, District-Jaunpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to some ulterior motive. It is submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. and initially F.I.R. has been lodged against the four other accused persons under Section 307, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, during the course of treatment injured Tauheed Alam died as a result of which section 302 IPC has been added. As per F.I.R. incident is said to have taken place on 14.10.2017 at about 7.30 p.m. at Gopalapur Triangle. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on exhortation of Umakant Baranwal and Vaibhav Baranwal, Vivek and Brijesh Kumar @ Bablu opened fire at the deceased. It is submitted that informant reiterated the same version given in F.I.R. before the Investigating Officer. It is next submitted that there is nothing on record to show that at the time of occurrence applicant also was present on the spot or near by. It was further submitted that after four months of the occurrence Investigating officer recorded the statement of Arif Siddiqui and Rashid Ali and on the basis of suspicion falsely implicated the applicant in this case. It is also submitted that Investing officer has neither recorded the statement of injured nor called any Magistrate for recording of dying declaration under the pressure of accused persons. It is lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 28.07.2018 and if he is released on bail, there is no chance of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, allegations in the F.I.R. and all other materials available on record, in my opinion, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let the applicant, Parvez Ahmad , who is involved in Case Crime No.980 of 2017 under Section 302, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police StationRampur, District-Jaunpur. be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned on the following conditions:-
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 3.12.2018 Pr/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant, Parvez Ahmad, is entitled to be released on bail pending trial in a case under Section 302 IPC.
Parvez Ahmad
State Of U.P.
Krishna Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
