This Court dismissed a bail application in a murder case alleging that the informant's recantation and recovery of a pistol did not negate the applicant's specific role as a shooter. The Court held the case was not fit for bail.
The bail application was rejected; the applicant is to remain in custody.
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. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4760 of 2020
Applicant :- Naseer @ Lal Badshah Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Girish Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Girish Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and the learned A.G.A.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Naseer @ Lal Badshah, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 112 of 2015, under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Colonelganj, District Kanpur Nagar.
The prosecution version in the F.I.R is that the first informant was having a workshop of readymade cloth shreds where his elder brother Sarfraj Hussain @ Munne, he himself and a lady named Lajo were working. At about 01:00 p.m. Tafseer and Naseer @ Lal Badshah the present applicant armed with a country made pistol came inside and shot his elder brother Sarfraj Hussain @ Munne on his face. They tried to catch the assailants but they ran away. The deceased was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the first informant appears to be an interested witness and even not an eye witness. In the F.I.R he has named two accused persons. Subsequently, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he had added one more accused Mohd. Sami @ Pappe. He further argued that in the supplementary statement of the first informant / Annexure3 to the affidavit, he narrates the same version as given in his previous statement but further implicated Noor Alam as a conspirator in the matter. He states that as such the credibility of the first informant gets damaged and he appears to be not an eye witness of the incident with a zeal to keep on implicating persons by increasing their numbers. He further argued that the recovery of a country made pistol and 04 left cartridges from the workshop of Mohd. Nayeem on the pointing out of the applicant is a planted recovery. There is criminal history of two cases which has been explained in paragraph 22 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 22.04.2015.
Per contra learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. Specific role is
assigned to him in both the statements of the first informant. The presence of the first informant at the place of occurrence is very natural. The applicant having criminal history does not deserve to be released on bail as he has been assigned the specific role of shooting along with co-accused. He further points out that in the post mortem report there are two firearm wounds of entry reported by the doctor which is coroborating the prosecution version. The injuries are from a very close quarter.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I do not find it a fit case bail. The bail application is, hence, rejected.
Order Date :- 12.2.2020 AS Rathor
(Samit Gopal,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in a murder case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Naseer @ Lal Badshah
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
