AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 342 wordsHon''ble S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Gopal Chaturvedi, senior advocate assisted by Sri Sikandar B. Kochar, Sri V.P. Srivastava, senior advocate assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava, Learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, Learned Counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there are cross cases and three persons from the side of the applicant received injuries including the applicant. From the side of the prosecution, one Sagir Ahmad died and Akeel Ahmad, Abdul Waheed, Smt. Shahjahan, Mohd. Mufassil and Guddu received injuries. From the side of the defence, the applicant Mohd. Asif, Ruby and Armuwan received injuries including the gunshot injuries.
Learned A.G.A. and Learned Counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail.
There are cross cases. Both the sides received injuries. At this stage, it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the first aggressor. Co-accused Mohd. Arif and Laiq Ahmad have already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.10.2010 passed in bail application No. 30317 of 2010.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is also entitled to bail. In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let applicant Mohd. Asif, involved in case crime No. 923 of 2010 under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned and also subject to the following conditions :
(a) The applicant shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by him; and
(b) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
