Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 213 (ALL)

JAMIL @ BHOORA v. STATE OF U. P.

2011-01-28

B.N.SHUKLA

body2011
JUDGMENT. B.N. SHUKLA, J.-Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi learned Senior Counsel assisted by S/Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, Malti Sharma and Anurag Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Nisar Uddin, learned Counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that co-accused Shah Mohammad has been allowed bail by this Court and case of the applicant stands on same footing and the applicant has no motive to commit murder. It is further contended that as per prosecution case 2 persons had inflicted injuries to the deceased but only one injury has been found on the body of the deceased and it is not clear which of the accused is author of this injury. Lastly it is contended that witnesses Mohd. Kasim and Mohd. Anees are resident of district Ghaziabad and Bulandshahr while place of occurrence comes in the jurisdiction of P.S. Kithore, District Meerut. These witnesses are relative of first informant and their presence on the place of occurrence is doubtful. The applicant is in jail since 18.6.2009. 2. Learned A.G.A. has contended that on pointing out of the applicant blood stained knife which was used in committing murder of the deceased was recovered from possession of the applicant and statements of witnesses Mohd. Kasim and Mohd. Anees have been recorded on 25.5.2009 and there is specific allegation against the applicant that he had inflicted injury to the deceased Asif by Chhuri. 3. Learned Counsel for the complainant has contended that the trial is pending and all the witnesses except doctor have been examined in the Trial Court. 4. The dead body was found inside Santro Car and information was given at P.S. Kithore then the FIR was lodged on 25.5.2009. The applicant was seen along with other accused in Santro car with the deceased. There are statements of witnesses Mohd. Kasim and Mohd. Anees making accusation against the applicant that he had inflicted injury to the deceased by Chhuri. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I do not find any merit in the bail application. 6. Consequently, the prayer for bail of the applicant Jamil alias Bhoora is hereby rejected. 7. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I do not find any merit in the bail application. 6. Consequently, the prayer for bail of the applicant Jamil alias Bhoora is hereby rejected. 7. However, considering this fact that the trial is pending and it is informed by the learned Counsel for the complainant that except doctor all the witnesses have been examined in the Trial Court, the Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in Case Crime No. 303 of 2009, under sections 364, 302, 201, 34 IPC, P.s. Kithore, District Meerut and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of the presentation of the certified copy of this order provided the applicant cooperates with the trial.