Bail application rejected in a criminal case involving murder and affray. The court found the case was not a fit case for bail at that stage without commenting on merits, due to complicity severity and totality of facts.
Bail application rejected
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. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1595 of 2019
Applicant :- Mahsoob Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,S.S.Pandey
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri S.S. Pandey, learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated for murder of Jalla @ Taiyab; that as per averments made in FIR dated 22.01.2018, brother of first informant Jalla @ Taiyab upon getting a phone call left towards house of Nasir on 21.01.2018 at about 06:15 p.m. and was followed by his brother Gayoor and nephew Masoom and when he reached near house of Nasir, named accused persons with whom there was property dispute and were ambushing since before with two others and upon exhortation, all of them assaulted for causing death of Jalla @ Taiyab and upon catching hold of Jalla by co-accused Jamshed, Munshad, Azam, Israr son of Mahsoob and Israr son of Sageer each of applicant Mahsoob and co-accused Janshar, fired in his chest and abdomen, and when Gayoor and Masoom intervened, attempt was also made on their life, but Masoom narrowly escaped with the fire made on him, upon which, he was beaten with butt of pistol and sustained injuries near left eye and Jalla @ Taiyab was taken to hospital where he was declared dead; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; that no source of light has been mentioned at the place of incident; that applicant had won election of village pradhan against deceased due to which deceased and his family members were having enmity against him, because of which he has been falsely implicated; that statements of alleged eye witnesses Gayoor and Masoom have been recorded after a period of one and half month on 12.04.2018 and they were not at all eye witnesses of the incident; that during investigation, it was found that Israr son of Sageer who has been assigned with the role of catching hold of deceased, was in mosque and has been falsely implicated because of which Investigating Officer has exonerated; that due to above reason, entire prosecution story becomes doubtful; that recovery of firearm at the
pointing of applicant from an open public place has been falsely planted, of which there is no independent witness; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 22.01.2018.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that applicant is named in promptly lodged FIR with specific role of firing on vital part of deceased assigned to him; that autopsy report of deceased states that he sustained two firearm injuries by two different firearms and corroborates prosecution case; that incident did take place in the evening and there was sufficient light at the place of occurrence to identify assailants, who belong to same village and previously known to prosecution witnesses; that injured Masoom was medically examined on very next day 22.01.2018 as per Annexure -4 and was enquired by Investigating Officer, and if statements of eye witnesses have been recorded by him after delay due to influential of applicant, he may not take benefit; that murder of Jalla @ Taiyab was committed by accused in pre-planned manner on account of election rivalry and applicant is main culprit; that there is no reason for false implication of applicant; that applicant if released on bail, shall obstruct fair disposal of trial;
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The bail application of applicant Mahsoob in Case Crime No. 46 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Jhinjhana District Shamli is rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 24.1.2019 M. ARIF
Mahsoob
State Of U.P.
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
