Yamin vs State of U.P.

Hon''ble Surendra Singh, J.—Sri I.M. Khan has filed parcha on behalf of the informant which is taken on record. Applicant-Yamin seeks bail in Case Crime No. 189 of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 354, 452, 307, 302, 504, 34, 120B I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and I.M. Khan, learned counsel appearing for informant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is alleged to have armed with lathi and in the absence of any lathi injury either to the deceased or any of the injured persons, false implication of the applicant as a participant in the present crime cannot be ruled out. It is further argued that co-accused, Zahid has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court on 24.11.2011 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31810 of 2011.He claims parity with co-accused, Mohd. Zahid. He has further submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the applicant, being in jail since 30.06.2011, having no criminal history to his credit and, moreover, the trial having not concluded and likely to consume some more time to conclude, deserves to be released on bail at this stage.

The bail is, however, vehemently opposed by the learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for the informant by contending that two injured Smt. Varisha and Shakeela in their statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 17.4.2011 and 19.4.2011 respectively have stated that all the accused persons including the applicant and accused Zahid having armed with sword, knife and country made pistol forcibly entered into the house made murderous assault. Thus the role assigned to the applicant is at par to the rest of the co-accused persons.. They have further argued that the trial has not concluded and in case the applicant is allowed to be released on bail, there is every likelihood of his fleeing away from the judicial process and tampering with the prosecution evidence. In view of the above, he is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage.

The points pertaining to nature of accusation, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses, prima facie, satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered.

Considering the nature of the argument advanced and the allegations contained in the F.I.R., the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant-Yamin involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: 1. that he will not temper with the evidence; and

that he shall report to the court of C.J.M. concerned in the first week of each month to show his good conduct and behaviour till conclusion of the trial.

It is further directed that the trial court shall make every endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, without unreasonable delay, in accordance with law. It will be open to the trial court to take the recourses to all the processes permissible under the law to secure and ensure the presence of the accused as well as witnesses, if necessary. Both the parties are expected to cooperate in the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment.