Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2519 (ALL)

RASEED v. STATE O

2007-10-03

AVINDRA SINGH

body2007
RAVINDRA SINGH, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Raseed with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 384 of 2006 under sections 307 & 326 I. P. C. , P. S. Naini, District Allahabad. 2. The facts in brief of this case are that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Sabir Khan on 28. 11. 2006 at 8. 40 a. m. against the applicant and co-accused Shakeel, in respect of the incident which had occurred on 28. 11. 2008 at about 8. 00 a. m. The distance of the police station was about half km. from the alleged place of occurrence. It is alleged that applicant was having enmity with the family of the first informant. The father of the first informant who is the injured of this case is a Teacher in I. T. I. Naini, on account of enmity an assault was made on the injured Saleem Khan on 28. 3. 2006 at about 8. 00 a. m. The applicant and co-accused Shakeel came on a motorcycle and a bomb was hurdled by Shakeel, consequently the injured sustained injury. The applicant and another co-accused were chased but they successfully ran away from the alleged place of occurrence. The injured was sent to Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Allahabad for medical treatment. According to the medical examination report the injured Saleem Khan had sustained bomb blast injury in which injury No. 1 was grievous in nature is on the left upper arm, the amputation of left upper arm below the shoulder joint has taken place and injury No. 2 was abraded contusion on left side of the chest. The injury No. 1 was grievous in nature and injury No. 2 was simple in nature. The applicant applied for bail before learned in charge Sessions Judge, Allahabad who rejected the same on 13. 8. 2007. 3. Heard Sri A. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and Sri Iqbal Hasan, learned Counsel for the complainant. 4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent person he has not committed the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of previous enmity. The role of causing the injury has not been assigned to the applicant, it has been assigned to co-accused Shakeel. 4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent person he has not committed the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of previous enmity. The role of causing the injury has not been assigned to the applicant, it has been assigned to co-accused Shakeel. The only allegation against the applicant is that he and co-accused Shakeel came on an motorcycle at the alleged place of occurrence and co-accused Shakeel hurdled the bomb, consequently, injured sustained injury. The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by learned in charge Sessions Judge only on the basis of criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 193 of 2004 under section 302 I. P. C. , P. S. Raniganj, District Pratpgarh. The applicant was acquitted on 2. 6. 1998 vide S. T. No. 584 of 1994 by learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh. The applicant was falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 283 of 1994 under section 3 of U. P. Control of Goondas Act, P. S. Raniganj, District Pratapgarh in which the proceedings have been dropped and in remaining two cases, i. e. Case Crime No. 26 of 2003 under sections 452, 392, 323, 504, 506 and 325 I. P. C. , P. S. Raniganj, District Pratapgarh and in Case Crime No. 52 of 2006 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 and 506 I. P. C. , P. S. Raniganj, District Pratapgarh the applicant has been released on bail. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution story. The applicant is in jail since 12. 7. 2007 and the applicant is ready to furnish reliable sureties bond to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 5. In reply of the above contention it is submitted by learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that prior of the alleged incident the injured was assaulted by the applicant with an intention to kill him in which the applicant was named in FIR, the role of firing was assigned to him. The applicant is a harden criminal and he is having criminal antecedent of seven criminal cases including a case of murder, robbery, an attempt to commit the murder, marpeet, dacoity and goonda Act. The applicant is a harden criminal and he is having criminal antecedent of seven criminal cases including a case of murder, robbery, an attempt to commit the murder, marpeet, dacoity and goonda Act. In case he is released on bail he shall tamper with the evidence, therefore, he may not be released on bail. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant and considering the fact that prior to the alleged incident the injured was assaulted by the applicant in which he had sustained gun shot wound of entry, therefore the alleged incident occurred in which the applicant and co-accused Shakeel went on a motorycycle and in a pre planned manner the bomb was hurled on the injured who sustained grievous injury, though the allegation of hurdling the bomb is not against the applicant but in such a case no lenient view for releasing the applicant on bail may be taken. The applicant having criminal antecedent. The applicant has misused the liberty of bail granted to him in some other criminal case, to ensure a fair trial and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant may not be released on bail, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly, this application is rejected. Application Rejected. .