Aakib & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Since both these bail applications arise from one and the same FIR, they are decided by this common order.

Applicants are in judicial custody in FIR No. 62 of 2024, under Sections 147, 354, 452, 323, 307, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. They have sought their release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, co-accused Fardeen and Rauf wanted to forcibly remove the victim and took her on the motorcycle. The victim resisted to it. After a while, the co-accused Fardeen attacked the victim with a sharp edged weapon, due to which, she sustained injuries. The victim was saved by the persons, who had gathered at the spot. FIR records that the applicants were exhorting the co-accused Fardeen to kill the victim.

Learned counsel for the applicants Rauf and Aakib would submit that FIR is false. Injured as well as witnesses, namely, Suraj Gupta, Bablu Kumar and Bhumika have not supported the prosecution case as stated in the FIR. It is argued that the injured has only named co-accused Fardeen as a person, who has hit her. Witnesses Suraj Gupta and Bablu Kumar have not named any other person except the co-accused Fardeen. It is argued that the injured and one of the witnesses, Bhumika have stated that once the co-accused Fardeen had assaulted the injured, the applicants and co-accused were present at a distance, who were exhorting to kill the injured. It is also argued that in the CCTV footage, the applicants are not seen near the place of incident. Therefore, it is argued that it is a case fit for bail.

Learned counsel for the State counsel would submit that although, according to the injured, co-accused attacked her with a weapon and when she ran away she was saved by some persons, who were present there. It is argued that at that stage, the applicants and the co-accused were saying that the injured should be killed. He admits that witnesses Bablu Kumar and Suraj Gupta have not stated anything against the applicants, but one of the witnesses Bhumika has also assigned the same role as was assigned to the applicants by the injured.

Learned State counsel admits that there is a CCTV footage of the incident, in which the applicants are not visible.

It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings.

The applicants are not the person who chased the injured. The applicants are not the person who attacked the injured. What is the role assigned to them is that after the incident, when some person intervened and saved the injured, the applicants and the co-accused were exhorting to kill the injured. It is admitted that in the CCTV footage the applicants are not visible.

Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.

The bail applications are allowed.

Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties by each one of them, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.