Allahabad High Court
Tausif Ali vs State Of U.P. on 3 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13138 of 2023 Applicant :- Tausif Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tripurari Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prakash Chandra Srivastava Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate holding brief of Sri Tripurari Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ravi Kant Kushwaha, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in S.T. No. 1813 of 2022, Case Crime No. 186 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 506, 302/34 IPC, Police Station Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur during pendency of the trial.
3. FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and according to the FIR applicant and other nominated accused persons on 25.07.2022 made assault upon the brother of informant through wooden sticks and due to the assault made by them his brother sustained serious injuries and subsequently scummed to his injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and applicant neither participated in the incident nor he ever caused any injuries to anyone. He further submits that although informant in the FIR nominated total seven persons including applicant but when his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded then he introduced total 12 persons and thus he added five new persons and this fact clearly suggests that he is not an eye witness and no reliance can be placed on the testimony of such witness. He further submits that one Saidullah claimed himself to be an eye witness but he is also one of the brother of the victim and informant, therefore, after statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he also started stating against 12 accused persons including applicant.
5. He further submits that although as per prosecution as many as 12 persons made assault through wooden sticks upon the deceased but post mortem report of the deceased shows that he sustained only five injuries, therefore, it appears that number of accused persons have falsely been implicated in the present matter and story narrated by the informant and his witnesses are highly exaggerated one.
6. He next submits that although bail application of co-accused Ashar Khan has been dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.03.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 54251 of 2022 but law is settled that there cannot be any parity of bail rejected order, therefore, considering the nature of allegation, applicant may be enlarged on bail.
7. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that since beginning from the FIR there is allegation against the applicant that he along with other accused persons made assault upon the deceased and due to the assault made by them deceased died and even if deceased sustained five injuries then it cannot be said that applicant and other accused persons have falsely been implicated in the present matter.
8. Learned counsel for the informant further submits that from the spot Investigating Officer during investigation collected two CCTV footages one from the house of Ahmadullah and another from Saimuddin and although in the CCTV footage collected from the house of Saimuddin applicant is not visible but from the CCTV footage collected by the Investigating Officer from the house of Ahmadullah the presence of the applicant is not only evident at spot but also from the CCTV footage dated 25.07.2022 time 15.04.10 PM it reflects that applicant actively participated in the incident and after commission of the crime applicant was running from the spot, therefore, considering the fact that from the CCTV footage of the house of Ahmadullah involvement of the applicant is evident in the present crime and bail application of one co-accused Ashar Khan has been dismissed, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
10. Although, from the FIR, it appears that only seven persons were named in it including applicant but when the statement of informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded then he nominated as many as 12 persons and deceased sustained only five injuries but from the record it appears that Investigating Officer procured CCTV footage from the house of two persons, namely Saimuddin and Ahmadullah and although from CCTV footage, which was recovered from the house of Saimuddin, it appears that in that footage presence of applicant is not evident but from the CCTV footage recovered from the house of Ahmadullah it appears that applicant was not only present at spot but he also participated in the incident and after the incident he was running along with other co-accused persons from the spot and this fact has been noted by the Investigating Officer after perusal of the CCTV footage recovered from the house of Ahmadullah in the case diary.
11. Further, bail application of similarly placed co-accused person Ashar Khan has been dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and from the perusal of bail rejection order of Ashar Khan dated 21.03.2023 it appears that co-ordinate Bench of this Court also considered the CCTV footage, which was collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation.
12. Therefore, considering the CCTV footage, which was collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation from the house of Ahmadullah and bail application of similarly placed co-accused has been dismissed by this Court, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
13. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 3.5.2023 AK Pandey