Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 319 (ALL)

Iqbql v. State of U. P.

2016-01-22

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2016
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant and counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A., today in the Court, are taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 3. Perused the record. 4. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is said to have made an attack on the victim by knife (Chhuri) but the facts and circumstances of the case are such which would indicate that the implication of the applicant has been shown after due deliberation with concert. The thrust of the submissions is that the victim was examined on 16.4.2014 at 8.05 A.M. in the morning and the medical examination report, which has been annexed as Annexure-2, would indicate that the victim was brought by his brother-in-law namely Saleem to the hospital and was got medically examined. Further submission is that though the incident is claimed by the prosecution to have taken place on 16.4.2014 at 6.00 A.M. in the morning but the application which was moved on behalf of Saleem to the Medical Officer, District Hospital, Bareilly seeking to get his brother-in-law medically examined would indicate that the assault had taken place on the victim one day before the alleged time of occurrence. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the contents of Annexure-4 which is an application moved by Saleem to Emergency Medical Officer, District Hospital Bareilly in which it has been categorically stated that his brother-in-law was assaulted by certain persons on the previous day's evening resulting in injuries on his person and as he was not medically examined anywhere nor the F.I.R. of the case was lodged, therefore, his medical examination may be done. This application is dated 16.4.2014. Contention is that the contents of the application are categorical and there is no ambiguity in the same. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to the medical examination in which according to the opinion of the doctor also the duration of the injury is half day old. Further submission is that when the victim was examined just after two hours of the incident then the duration of the injuries could not have been measured or estimated to be half day old. Further submission is that when the victim was examined just after two hours of the incident then the duration of the injuries could not have been measured or estimated to be half day old. Further contention is that even this estimate goes to confirm the contents of the application moved by the brother-in-law of the victim who had alleged the incident to have taken place on the previous day's evening that is to say on 15.4.2014 instead of 16.4.2014. Counsel has also tried to point out that the application moved by Saleem also does not contain the names of the assailants and it has been averred in the application that certain persons had made the assault. Argument is that this is also an indication to demonstrate that whosoever might have been the assailants were not identified at the time of assault. In the same context counsel has tried to emphasize that the F.I.R. of the case was lodged on 25.4.2014 that is to say after about nine days of the occurrence which also goes to indicate in the same direction that the nomination of the accused persons is an act of deliberations. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.2.2015 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. 6. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. 6. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant-Iqbal, involved in Case Crime No.169 of 2014, u/s 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., P.S.-Bhamaura, District-Bareilly be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions : - (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. 8. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 9. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.