The single-judge High Court granted bail to the applicant in a case involving charge of attempt to murder and punishing with false information, with conditions to not misuse liberty and ensuring presence during trial.
Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38978 of 2019
Applicant :- Danish Alias Lala Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rizwan Ahmad Qureshi) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,A.K.Chaudhary,P.K.Kashyap
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Rizwan Ahmad Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Lalji Maurya, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Danish @ Lala with a prayer to enlarge her on bail in C ase Crime No.151 of 2019, under Sections 307 and 506 I.P.C., Police StationGalshaheed, District-Moradabad, during the pendency of the trial.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report has been lodged against six named accused persons including the applicant with an allegation that there was dispute regarding possession over the property in dispute between the parties, therefore, all the accused persons assaulted nephews of the informant, namely, Zafar Saeed and Junaid Saeed due to which they sustained fire arm injuries. As per the statement of the injured Junaid Saeed recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it has been stated that due to dispute regarding possession over the property in dispute, all the accused persons came with fire arms and assaulted the injured and the role of causing injuries to the injured Junaid has been specified to the applicant. In the statement of the injured Zafar Saeed recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it has been stated that three accused persons, namely, Danish (applicant), Nazim @ Raju and Kalua came with country-made pistols and the fired upon both the injured due to which they sustained fire arm injured. It has further been stated that one shot fired by the three accused hit the shutter of the house of his uncle, whereas other two shots hit both the injured. The injured Zafar has not specified as to who has caused injuries to both the injured. It is next argued that though the specific
role of causing injuries to the injured Junaid has been assigned to the applicant, but as per the medical examination report, the injuries sustained by the injured Junaid are not on the vital part of his body. There is no consistency in the version of the first information report as well as in the statements of the injured. The applicant has two criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one but in both the cases the applicant has been acquitted. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 9th May, 2019.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same as expeditious, as possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicant fully cooperates in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Order Date :- 11.11.2019 Sushil/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant Danish Alias Lala should be released on bail in a case under Sections 307 and 506 I.P.C. involving disputed property and firearm injuries.
What conditions must be satisfied for the grant of bail in this case?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and anotherExplained¶11
Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Danish Alias Lala
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
