Shakeel vs State

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.

Applicant Shakeel, who is in jail in connection with FIR No. 316 of 2014, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 352, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, relating to Police Station, Ramnagar, District Nainital has sought his release on bail. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the bail application.

An FIR was lodged against present applicant and another on 19.10.2014, at police station, Ramnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 352, 506 IPC with the inclusion of Section 25 of the Arms Act later on. The incident allegedly took place on 18.10.2014, at 09:30 P.M.

As per the allegations, on 18.10.2104, at 09:30 P.M., when informant and his companion were talking to each other outside the house of the informant, Vasim (non-applicant), who was armed with lathi, came and abused him. Vasim (non-applicant) brought a country made pistol from his house. Informant''s father, mother and uncle came out of their houses. Vasim (non-applicant) killed informant''s father. He also fired upon informant''s mother, which hit her finger. Informant''s father was taken to hospital, but was declared brought dead. Informant''s mother sustained injuries on her finger and palm. Postmortem report indicated that ante mortem firearm injury resulted into the death of the victim due to shock and hemorrhage.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that nothing has been alleged against the present applicant in the FIR. The allegations are solely leveled against Vasim (non-applicant). There is not a single sentence in the FIR to indicate the complicity of present applicant Shakeel in the commission of crime. Learned Dy. Advocate General opposed the bail on the grounds, inter alia, that the involvement of the present applicant has come in the statement of Naseema Parveen recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. At this, learned Sr. Advocate further contended that the prosecution story has been developed in such a way that present applicant Shakeel, being the brother of Vasim, has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned Sr. Advocate submitted that whereas the incident took place in the night of 18.10.2014, the FIR was lodged on 19.10.2014, at 09:05 A.M. Statement of Naseema Parveen under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 22.10.2014, which according to learned Sr. Advocate is a later development to implicate present applicant.

Although it is a clear cut case of murder in which the entire allegations are levelled against Vasim (non-applicant), but nothing has been said against the present applicant in the FIR and the involvement of the present applicant has come to the fore only after four days when the statement of Naseema Parveen was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

Since nothing is alleged against the present applicant in the FIR, a case for bail is made out against the present applicant, in the considered opinion of this Court. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital.