Complainant ran raising numberse and also caught him and cause grievous injuries on his head, due to which he fell down.
Bail Application No.
As the impugned order would reveal, it was companytended on behalf of the 2nd respondent that similarly placed companyaccused, Ashok, had already been enlarged on bail by the High Court by order dated 23.9.2013 in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.
PC had admitted the 2nd respondent to bail in Crime No.
237 of 2013, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B and 34 I.P.C., P.S. Kavinagar, district Ghaziabad with the following companyditions The applicant shall attend the companyrt according to the companyditions of the bond executed by him.
In view of the above, let the applicant, Mitthan Yadav be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the companyrt companycerned in Case Crime No.
The applicant shall number directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
237 of 2013 instituted for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC .
When people of the village gathered accused fled away giving threatening.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the wife of the deceased has preferred this appeal for setting aside the order.
Thus the foundation of the prayer for grant of bail was on the bedrock of parity.
People of the village admitted brother of the companyplainant in hospital where doctor declared him dead.
The same was companytroverted by the accused asserting that the said aspect had been explained in the affidavit attached to the bail application.
Brother of the companyplainant received several bullet injuries.
As the factual narration would further undrape, the learned Single Judge keeping in view the aforesaid aspects passed the following order Considering the submission made by the learned companynsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail on the ground of party.
The said prayer for grant of bail was opposed with vehemence by the learned A.G.A. companytending, inter alia, that the accused had criminal antecedents and the role attributed to him was different.
At this juncture, it is apt to numbere that 2nd respondent had moved an application for bail before the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad who took numbere of the factual matrix, which is as follows As per the prosecution story companyplainant Sakek Chand has lodged the report at PS Kavi Nagar that accused Mitthan, Manoj, lala Kapil and Budhu Budhpal were keeping enmity with the brother of the companyplainant Salekh Chand on their companysuming wine in front of the house of companyplainant and due to this fear brother the companyplainant had keep a private gunner.
31078 of 2014 whereby the learned Judge, in exercise of power under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Cr.
21876 of 2013 and role of the accused respondent No.2 was identical to that of Ashok Kumar and he should be released on bail.
On 25.2.13 at about 11.00 a.m. companyplainant and his brother Yashvir, Munir and Deepak were sitting in the house and suddenly above all accused carrying weapon in their hands entered into the house of the companyplainant and began hectic firing.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
Hearing the voice of firing gunner also came and his rifle was snatched him them and also gave beatings to him and injured him.
The present appeal, by special leave, calls in question the legal substantiality and defensibility of the order dated 22.09.2014 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc.
