In bail application under CrPC Section 438, the High Court considered the nature of the gravity of Section 302 IPC offence, injury to deceased, and severity of punishment to reject the bail prayer without expressing opinion on merits.
Bail application rejected. Trial court directed to decide within six months.
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. - 23
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42464 of 2017
Applicant :- Abrar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- M J Akhtar,Shri V.M. Zaidi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Counter affidavit filed by State is taken on record.
Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri M.J. Akhtar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application has been filed by the accused-applicant Abrar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 115 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 323 I.P.C., Police Station Jansath, District Muzaffar Nagar.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed any offence. There is no evidence against him. He also contended that there is a general allegation against the accused as well as other co-accused persons. No specific role or weapon has been assigned to the applicant. He further contended that medical reports are not compatible with the prosecution case. The injuries on the part of other injured persons are simple in nature. He next argued that in case the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misused the liberty of bail. The applicant is languishing jail since 5.3.2016.
Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant along with other 6 or 7 coaccused persons assaulted with Lathi, Danda and Suja to the deceased and four other persons. The victim succumbed to injuries and four other person sustained injuries. The post mortem report reveals serious injuries which has been caused by the pointed weapon attributed to the applicant accused.
In State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh, 1962 AIR 253 , Supreme Court has observed as under :-
"Among other considerations, which a court has to take into account in deciding whether bail should be granted in a nonbailable offence, is the nature of the offence; and if the offence
is of a kind in which bail should not be granted considering its seriousness, the court should refuse bail even though it has very wide powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions made by learned counsel for the parties, injuries on the part of victim as well as deceased, severity of punishment and manner in which the incident took place and without expressing any opinion on merits, I do not find any good ground to release the accused-applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .
It is directed that the trial court shall make all endeavour to decide the case expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within a period of six months without granting unnecessary adjournment to the parties from the production of certified copy of this order before the Court concerned.
Order Date :- 30.3.2019 Manoj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the accused-applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving Section 302 IPC offences.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State Vs. Captain Jagjit SinghReferred¶10
1962 AIR 253 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Abrar
Rajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Rajendra Kumar
Parties & counsel
