Satyendra Kumar Singh, J
Case diary is available.
With the consent, heard finally.
This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant as he has been arrested on 18.5.2023 in connection with Crime No.250/2023 registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Datia for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 34, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and under Section 25(1-A) of Arms Act.
Prosecution story, in brief is that on 16.5.2023 at about 18:10-18:30 hours when complainant Saumant Singh Dangi along with his cousin Rajeev and brother-in-law Shivam was going towards Galla Mandi on his tractor and reached in front of Maharajpura, the applicant along with Shaksham Sharma, Shivam Pal, Saket Sharma, Mayank Shrivastava and other co-accused persons on previous enmity came there on several motorcycles and tried to stop complainant's tractor and assaulted with firearm due to which witness Kalicharan sustained bullet injury on his leg.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after about one and half hours of the incident, complainant himself lodged an FIR at Police Station Civil Line, Datia wherein it has specifically been stated that only co-accused persons Shaksham Sharma, Shivam Pal, Saket Sahrma and Mayank Shrivastava came on the spot on two motorcycles and fired at him due to which Kalicharan sustained bullet injury on his leg. After lodging of the FIR, complainant in his statement recorded during investigation under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. falsely implicated the applicant and stated that he along with other co-accused persons were also present near the spot and tried to stop complainant's tractor and assist the co-accused persons. It has not been stated anywhere that at what time his aforesaid statement was recorded. Injured Kalicharan in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has nowhere stated the name of the applicant. He has falsely been implicated in the matter only due to previous enmity. The applicant is in custody since 18.5.2023. Trial will take time to conclude and therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, applicant is entitled for grant of bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the complainant in his statement recorded during investigation on the date of incident itself specifically stated the name of the applicant who was very well involved in the crime, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
Having considered rival submission, material pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant specially with regard to the fact that complainant in his FIR did not mention the name of the applicant as assailant and also considering the statement of complainant Kalicharan, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence the application is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance before the Trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Trial Court during the pendency of trial. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.
This application is allowed and stands disposed of.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
