The High Court rejected the bail application of Dilshad in a prosecution involving deadly weapons and injuries, citing the gravity of charges, medical report support for injuries, and the applicant's failure to surrender despite prior direction.
Bail application rejected; applicant not released.
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. - 59655 of 2022
Applicant :- Dilshad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Lal,Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,Hemant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Dubey
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard Sri Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. on behalf of State.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.293 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 307, 452, 352, 324, 325 I.P.C., P.S. Gulaothi, District Bulandshahr, during pendency of the trial.
It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 24.04.2021 at about 6 pm. when the informant was preparing for Roja Iftari along with his brother Haneef, nephew Rehan and other family members, then nephew Adnan came there with milk, then accused Sirajjuddin @ Pula, Wasim, Dilshad, Saddam, Nadeem @ Gaddu having revolver and pistol reached there and hurled abuses, thereafter, Saddam and Dilshad with intention to kill opened fire upon injured Adnan which hit both his legs. On hearing noise of firing, informant Haneef and Rehan came there, then Wasim with intention to kill, fired upon Rehan and Irshad fired upon informant and the fire shot passed above the ear of Rehan and he sustained injury in his left palm. The informant and his brother Haneef, Rehan and Adnan came inside the house, then accused persons entered into his house and Nadeem @ Gaddu assaulted the injured with sharp edged weapon as a result, he received injuries in his hands. On this hue and cry, various persons reached on the spot, whereupon accused persons ran away giving threat of life.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to prior enmity. The applicant has not inflicted injury with injured
Adnan. As per statement of injured, role of assault and causing injury has not been assigned to the applicant. The injured has received fire arm injury but it cannot be said that applicant is responsible for causing injury and injuries are not on vital part of the body. In C.C.T.V. footage, the applicant’s presence has not been confirmed by witnesses. The applicant has criminal history of five cases. The statement of witnesses are not corroborating to each other and not supporting medical report. It is further argued that alleged offence is not made out under Section 307 I.P.C. and it would be travelled only upto Section 324 I.P.C. and in support of his submission, he has placed reliance in para-21 of the judgment of Apex Court in Gopal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 7 SCC 545. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.09.2022.
It has been next submitted by counsel for the applicant that applicant moved Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.13803 of 2021 before this Court which was rejected vide order dated 06.01.2022. Thereafter, the applicant moved Application (under Section 482) No.17205 of 2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 01.03.2022 directing the applicant to surrender before the court below within 15 days. Thereafter, on 10.12.2022, S.L.P. Since the applicant was innocent and has been falsely implicated, therefore he was approaching the court so that he may not be arrested on false allegation and approach of the applicant is genuine. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Nanha Vs. State of U.P. ; and in para-31 of the judgment of Apex Court in S.K. Yusuf Vs. State of West Bengal (1993 Crl.L.J. 938).
On the other hand, counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and contended that from perusal of contents of F.I.R., it is apparent, applicant opened fire upon injured Adnan and he received three injuries As per State Medico Legal Cell, injury no. 2 has been found grievous in nature and the firearm wound of entry of injured leg are at the level of 1/3 middle of right and left leg; in injured Kale Pahalwan injury are precipitated by hard and blunt object cannot be self inflicted and injury received by Hamza: the injury incised wound on vital area are dangerous in nature. There are three injury:
It has been further argued that applicant has not surrendered before the court below in spite of the order passed by this Court while deciding application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to surrender within 15 days. But the applicant did not surrender before the court below and kept absconding and has been arrested after proceedings initiated under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. The applicant has initially not surrendered before the trial court and delayed the trial court proceedings and there is chance of absconding, if enlarge on bail hence, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. In support of his submission, counsel for the informant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in Prem Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another .
It is evident that applicant was involved in firing and causing injury to the injured Adnan. Moreover, the applicant has absconded from participating in the investigation whereas he had knowledge that police party is searching him and he willfully absconded here and there. In spite of direction of this Court, applicant failed to appear before the court below and the applicant was arrested after proceedings started under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., by best efforts.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the gravity of accusation, looking to the fact that injury report finds support from the version given in F.I.R., there does not appear to be any false implication and there being possibility of his fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find good ground for enlarging the applicant, on Bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .
Order Date :- 3.2.2023/Meenu Singh
Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail given the gravity of the accusation and possibility of absconding.
Whether the applicant has sufficiently established false implication to warrant bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gopal Singh vs State of UttarakhandReferred¶7
Gopal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 7 SCC 545 · Who else cites this
Nanha vs State of U.P.Referred¶9
Nanha Vs. State of U.P.
S.K. Yusuf vs State of West BengalReferred¶9
S.K. Yusuf Vs. State of West Bengal (1993 Crl.L.J. 938)
Prem Shankar Prasad vs State of BiharReferred¶12
Prem Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dilshad
State of U.P.
Deepak Verma
Meenu Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
