Court No.

- 39

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5172

of 2019

Applicant :- Kallan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Singh,Radheshyam Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar

And

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46379

of 2018

Applicant :- Haneef
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Singh,Irshad
Ahmad,Radheshyam Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

Heard Sri Radheyshyam Yadav, learned counsel for the

applicants, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the
State and Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the first
informant. Perused the material on record.

These are two bail applications being Criminal Misc. Bail

Application Nos. 5172 of 2019(Kallan Vs. State of U.P.) and
46379 of 2018 (Haneef Vs. State of U.P.). They are connected
in compliance of the order of this Court dated 6.2.2019 passed
by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Today both bail
applications are listed in the additional cause list in compliance
of the order dated 24.6.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 5172 of 2019 by a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court. Therefore, both bail applications are heard and decided
by a common order.

These two bail applications under Section 439 of Code of

Criminal Procedure have been filed by the applicants Kallan
and Haneef seeking enlargement on bail during trial in
connection with Case Crime No. 39 of 2018, under Sections
302, 506, 34 IPC, registered at P.S. Hazrat Nagar Garhi, District
Moradabad.

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants

have been falsely implicated in the present case. The first
informant who is the witness in this case, states that the
occurrence took place on the adjoining roof which creates
doubt. Reliance has been placed on the site plan annexed as
annexure no. S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit, and it is
argued that between both houses i.e. the house in which the
incident took place and the house in which the first informant
resides there was a lane in between and as such both were
distant to each other. The incident is said to have taken place on
the roof and the first informant himself claimed to be present on
the roof. It is argued that since there was a lane in between both
houses, roofs were distant to each other and it was not possible
for the first informant to have witnessed the occurrence
specifically the same was being committed in the night. The
present incident as per the F.I.R. took place on 12.6.2018 at
about 1.30 A.M. In the F.I.R. general role has been assigned all
the accused persons without specification and weapons
whatsoever.

It was subsequently in the statement of the first informant

specifically at page-18 of the paper book, that for the first time
role of having armed like 'balkati' has been assigned to that of
Kallan and knife has been assigned to Haneef. It is further
argued that two other co-accused persons namely Vahid and
Shahid have been assigned the role of catching hold, have been
granted bail in the present matter. Learned counsel for the
applicant thus argued that implication of the applicants is false
and incorrect as the first informant would have hardly
witnessed the incident.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the first informant

vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the
prosecution version remained consistent in so far as naming of
the accused persons and the version relating to the actual
incident is concerned, has also remained the same throughout. It
is further argued that the applicants have been assigned the
specific role by the first informant. Post mortem report shows
that the deceased received four incised wounds which also gets
corroborated from the prosecution version regarding the
weapon and its use as the same gets corroborated by linking to
the nature of the injuries.

It is further argued that as per para-11 of the affidavit in support

of this bail application and annexures enclosed therein,
weapons have been recovered from the possession of the
accused persons. There remained no doubt regarding their
participation and there is motive for them to join hands for
committing the said offence and there is no reason for false
implication. It is thus prayed that the bail application of the
applicants be rejected.
Learned A.G.A. also opposed the prayer for bail and adopts all
the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the first
informant.

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as

nature and gravity of the offence, I do not find it to be a fit case
for bail.

Both bail applications are, accordingly, rejected.

Order Date :- 9.7.2020

Naresh

(Samit Gopal,J.)