Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHD. FARID versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mohd. Farid v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3804 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7445 (6 April 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Reserved

Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 3804 of 2006

Mohd Farid...Vs....... State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.

This application is filed by the applicant Mohd Farid with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 301 of 2005, under Sections 302, 323 and 427 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali   district Auraiya.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by one Nasir on 16.11.2005 at 11.50 p.m. in respect of the incident, which had occurred on 16.11.2005 at about 10.30 p.m. on Mughal Road in the vicinity of the village Mehrauli. It is alleged that the first informant was the 2nd driver of truck no. RJ-02-G-9234. Its 1st driver was deceased Zahoor and helper was Sahabuddin on 16.11. 2005. That truck loaded with Marvel powder was going from Alwar to Hamirpur on 16.11.2005 tat about 10.30 p.m.  the truck reached at the place of occurrence where one person wearing khaki dress and the second in a plain dress gave an indication for stopping the truck. The speed of the truck was slow. These persons in a abusing language shouted for stopping the truck and proceeded towards truck and  fired two shots in which one shot hit the window of the truck consequently, the glass was broken, which caused injuries on the left hand of the first informant and the second shot hit the driver Mohd Zahoor who was sitting on the rear seat, whodied on the spot. The miscreants were identified in the light of the truck. Thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged against two unknown persons.

Heard Sri Sri B.B. Dubey learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant: -

(i)That in the present case the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He has not been put up for identification. The name of the applicant came into light during the investigation, in the 2nd statement of first informant Nasir, whereas the Nasir has not disclosed the name of the applicant in his first statement, which was recorded immediately after lodging the F.I.R.

(ii)That the alleged occurrence had taken place in the dark hours of night on Mughal Road on 16.11.2005 at about 10.30 p.m. The F.I.R. was lodged in the same night on 16.11.2005 at about 11.50 p.m. There was no sufficient source of light to recognize the real assailants.

(iii)The first informant disclosed the name of the applicant in his second statement only on the basis of information given by one Rajeev Chaturvedi. The name of Rajeev Chaturvedi was not mentioned in the F.I.R. as eyewitness. Rajeev Chaturvedi was having inimical relation with the applicant. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement of Rajeev Chaturvedi and his friend Mirbhay.

(iv)The applicant was having no motive and intention to commit the alleged offence.

(v)That there was not other credible evidence against the applicant to show the involvement of the applicant.

(vi)That the applicant is innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case because due to ill will of the police prior to the alleged occurrence the applicant was challaned by the police in some other cases also in which he was acquitted

(vii)The recovery of one country made pistol, 3 cartridges was planted by the police.

It is opposed by the learned A.G.A by submitting that the alleged occurrence had taken place on Mughal Road. The gravity of the offence is too much because the applicant and other co-accused persons discharged the shots, consequently, one driver lost his life and the first informant became injured. It is modus operandi of the criminals, they loot the trucks by committing the murder of truck drivers etc. In the present case the first informant was not known to the culprits, but he has identified  the applicant, even he was not known to the witnesses Rajeev Chaturvedi and Nirbhay because he was outsider. Rajeev Chaturvedi and Nirbhay are independent witnesses. They disclosed the fact that the alleged offence was committed by the applicant and one other co-accused. The statement of Rajeev Chaturvedi was also recorded on 17.11.2005 at about 5.00 p.m. in which he clearly stated that the applicant and co-accused Akhilesh Kumar Mishra who were known to him prior  the alleged occurrence have committed the alleged offence and the statement of another eyewitness Nirbhay Kumar Doharey was recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr. P. C. on 21.11.2005. He also stated that the applicant and other co-accused Akhilesh Kumar Misra have committed the alleged offence. Both the witnesses are independent witness. They are having no enmity with the applicant. The applicant was arrested on 19.11.2005. From his possession one country made pistol and 3 live cartridges were recovered. The applicant is harden criminal. He is having the criminal antecedents. He is involved in 9 other criminal cases also and co-accused Akhilesh Kumar Misra is involved in 10 other criminal case also. In case the applicant is released on bail he shall tamper with the evidence and he may  abscond also; therefore he may not be released  on bail.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of the offence and its gravity and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

Dated: 6.4.2006.

Rcv


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.