Allahabad High Court
Bhola @ Iqbal vs State Of U.P. on 19 June, 2020
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 7 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27841 of 2019 Applicant :- Bhola @ Iqbal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey,Anil Kumar,Imran Mabood Khan,Shamsher Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Singh Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the first informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Bhola@Iqbal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 28 of 2019, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 326A, 452, 307, 506 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Mahawan, District Mathura.
Learned counsel for the applicant argues that although the applicant along with five other persons is named in the F.I.R. but there is a specific recital that co-accused Hazi Chunnu reached at the place of occurrence along with acid in a container and other accused persons were armed with danda and sariya and participated in the occurrence as a result of which Imran and Shakeem received injuries. It is further argued that in the statement of the injured Imran recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., copy of which has been annexed as annexure no. 3 to the affidavit, the role of throwing acid has been attributed to Hazi Chunnu by him but Shakeem in his statement (Annexure no. 3) has stated that co-accused Ballu waspresent with acid. It is further argued that the injuries received by Imran are simple in nature. In so far it relates to the injuries received by Shakeem it is argued that four accused persons have been assigned the role of danda and sariya and assaulting him but he has received injuries lesser in number as per medical examination report, which is annexure no. 2 to the affidavit, specifically at page-27 of the paper book. The criminal history of the applicant said to be of six cases apart from the present case is explained in para-20 of the affidavit. It is stated that two more cases were reported against the applicant but they have been wrongly shown for which specific averment has been made in para-21 of the affidavit. It is thus prayed that bail be granted on the that grounds and arguments.
Learned counsel for the first informant on the other hand argued that the applicant has been assigned the role along with other co-accused for participation in the matter. Even the injured persons have not in any manner either changed the version relating to the applicant or they give no role to the applicant. So far as the injuries of Imran is concerned, it is argued that he has received burn due to use of Acid which is said to have been thrown on him. Further it is argued that Shakeem received serious injuries which is also evident from the discharge summary, which is at page 30 of the paper book. The prayer for bail is thus opposed.
Learned A.G.A. also while adopting the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant, has further argued that as per his instructions the applicant is involved in six other cases and the nature of cases are all identical to that of the present case. The applicant has been the habit of repeating the offences since 2012 as per reported criminal antecedents. It is further argued that the discharge summary, which is at page-30, specifically mentions the opinion of doctor that the injuries received by Shakeem are grievous and dangerous to life.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced, I do not find it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 19.6.2020 Naresh (Samit Gopal,J.)