FAEEM Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2008-2-121
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 29,2008

FAEEM Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

RAVINDRA SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS appli ­cation has been filed by the applicant Faeem with a prayer that he may be re ­leased on bail in Case Crime No. 75 of 2007 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452 and 436 I.P.C, P.S. Kunwargaon, District Badaun.
(2.) HEARD Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Coun ­sel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri G.R.S. Pal, learned Counsel for the complainant. From the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case the FIR has been lodged by Musabbir on 7.3.2007 at 4.20 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 7.3.2007 at about 3.00 p.m. The distance of the police station was about 8 km. from the alleged place of occurrence. According to the FIR 7 persons including the applicant discharged the shots by their fire arms, consequently, Alamgir, Sabban and Intzar had sustained injuries, thereaf ­ter the injured Shabban succumbed to his injuries. The statement of the deceased was recorded by the I.O. under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he has specifically stated that applicant was armed with gun, co -accused Zariful, co -accused Shariful and Farhat were armed with countrymade pis ­tols and they discharged the shots conse ­quently, three persons sustained injuries thereafter the house was set on fire. Ac ­cording to the medical examination report of the deceased, he had sustained gun shot injury, the other injured have also sus ­tained gun shot injuries. The case of co -accused Nadeem and Alif Khan who have been released on bail is distinguishable with the case of the applicant and accord ­ing to the statement of the deceased they have not caused any injury. The role of causing the fire arm injury is assigned to the applicant by the injured witnesses also.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts, circum ­stances of this case, considering the gravity of the offence which is too much and con ­sidering the fact that FIR of this case has been promptly lodged and without ex ­pressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled to be re ­leased on bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly, this application is re ­jected. Application Rejected.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.