Shaukat Ali vs State of U.P.

These three Criminal Appeals have been preferred by Appellants Shaukat Ali, Aslam, Wakeel, Riyasat, Jamil, Khalil, Habib, Afsar, Irfan, Ansar, Mahmood and Imran after having been convicted in Session Trial No. 12 of 2009, under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 506(2) and 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced for maximum term of life imprisonment with fine stipulation thereof vide judgment and order dated 19.03.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No. 9, Pratapgarh.

Since all these appeals arise out one and the same judgment as such, the applications with respect to granting of bail during the pendency of appeal, are being taken up together.

We have heard Sri Sageer Ahmad assisted by Sri Mukul Rakesh and Sri Rishad Murtaza, learned Counsel for Appellants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate.

We have also gone through the judgment of court below as well as lower court record including post-mortem report of Mukhtar Ahmad, injury report of Inkalab (P.W.-1) and statements of other witnesses including statement of eye witness Shamshad (P.W.-2).

It comes out that on 3rd July, 2007 at about 1:00 p.m. accused persons dealt Mukhtar Ahmad and Inkalab Ahmad with Lathiand Sariya( iron rod) due to which Mukhatar Ahmad received three injuries which proved to be fatal. Inkalab, his son also received 13 injuries on various parts of his body. F.I.R. of the incident was lodged on the same day i.e. on 03.07.2007 at about 4:45 p.m. at Police Station Mandhata while the distance is said to be six kilometers.

Prosecution in support of its case, examined several witnesses including complainant, namely, Inkalab (P.W.-1) who had received 13 injuries in the incident; Shamshad (P.W.-2) who is said to be an eye witness.

No doubt that the deceased had received only three injuries, as such argument advanced by learned Counsel for Appellants is that only one injury upon the person of the deceased could have said to be fatal and it is not sure that out of 14 accused persons, who had caused the same. Our attention has also been drawn by learned Counsel for Appellants that there is discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The submission is that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court has gone too far while convicting the Appellants under the aforesaid Sections.

It has also been submitted that Sri Shaukat Ali, Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1023 of 2010 is very old. Since in his statement recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure on 20th January, 2010, Appellant, Shaukat Ali stated that he has reached the age of 81 years, therefore, his bail may be granted on the ground of age.

Taking into consideration the overall aspects of the matter, we feel that Shaukat Ali is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of age.

Accordingly, it is directed that Shaukat Ali convict of aforesaid Sessions Trial, shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

Realization of half of the fine from Appellant, Shaukat Ali is stayed and remaining half of the fine shall be deposited by him within one month from the date of his release on bail.

Court below is directed to transmit to this Court photocopies of bond and sureites filed by Appellant (Shaukat Ali) to be preserved on the record maintained in this Court.

So far as the prayer for bail of other Appellants, namely, Aslam, Wakeel, Riyasat, Jamil, Khalil, Habib, Afsar, Irfan, Ansar, Mahmood and Imran are concerned, the same is hereby rejected.