The Allahabad High Court has granted conditional bail to Sachin Sharma and Subham Gurjar, accused of attempting to murder on MP Asaduddin Owaisi by firing near Meerut Delhi Highway Toll Plaza.
A Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Sachin Sharma and Another.
The applicants seek enlargement on bail in FIR under Section 307 IPC & Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, P.S Pilkhuwa, District Hapur.
The facts that emerge from the records are that the FIR came to be lodged on 03.02.2022 alleging that on the said date at about 05:20 pm the victim alongwith a Member of Parliament was going from Meerut to Delhi and as soon as the car reached the toll plaza, some unknown assailants with an intent to kill started indiscriminate firing, however, the Member of Parliament could escape somehow and the assailants ran away from the spot in question.
It was also stated that the incident was seen by two persons named in the FIR whose addresses were also disclosed.
In the light of the said, based upon the analysis of CCTV footage, the Investigating Officer formed an opinion that he could identify the applicants who had done the actual indiscriminate firing as alleged in the FIR and as such, the applicants were linked with the offence in question and arrested.
Subsequently, the applicants applied for bail and were granted bail vide order dated 12.07.2022. While applying for bail, the applicants had argued before the Court that the co-accused Aalim was enlarged on bail by an order passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application and thus the applicants ought to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The Court while dealing with the bail applications of the applicants recorded that as the applicants were identically placed with the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail, the applicants were also enlarged on bail. Several conditions were also imposed against the applicants as conditions for grant of bail.
After the grant of bail on 12.07.2022, an SLP came to be filed on behalf of the victim before the Supreme Court on 22.08.2022 challenging the order of grant of bail to the applicants mainly on the ground that no case for parity was made out as argued by the applicants before the High Court.
It was further pleaded before the Supreme Court that after the grant of bail, the applicants had misused the said liberty by giving an interview before the Press in which, according to the counsel for the opposite parties, threats were issued to the victim who was a sitting Member of Parliament.
In terms of the pleadings made before the Supreme Court through the SLP, an order came to be passed by the Supreme Court wherein the Supreme Court set aside the order of grant of bail mainly on two grounds: that, no reasons were given at all while releasing the accused on bail, and that, even prima-facie opinion was not given in respect of the materials collected during the course of the investigation which was a part of the charge-sheet. The Supreme Court further felt that the seriousness of the offence alleged against the applicants was not considered by the High Court. Thus, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for adjudication afresh. As such, the matter has been placed before me for consideration of the bail application filed by the applicants afresh.
“Considering the submissions made at the Bar, what emerges is that the applicants were not named in the FIR, they were linked with the offence in question based upon the opinion expressed by the Investigating Officer after analyzing the CCTV footage which was probably linked by the CDR records, although, the material to that extent is not available before the Court; in the three statements recorded so far, the name of the applicants has not surfaced as admittedly the victim as well as the two persons sitting in the car did not know the applicants, and the material of verifying and matching the identity of the persons seen in the CCTV footage with the actual photographs prima-facie appears to be missing from the case diary. Thus, the evidence linking the applicants with the offence in question are prima-facie weak evidence at this stage.
In any case, the same is to be seen during trial and any observation with regard to the quality of the evidence might have an adverse effect on the trial. Apart from the said, the applicants have suffered pre-trial detention since 04.02.2022 and admittedly have no criminal antecedents, thus, prima-facie, there is no material on record to suggest that the applicants, if enlarged on bail, can in any way adversely affect the trial as the evidences linking the applicants with the offence in question has to be testified by the police authorities who do not even claim that they are threats from the applicants in any manner.
Considering all the aforesaid facts coupled with the fact that the interview of applicant no1 heavily relied upon by the counsel for the informant and victim, prima-facie, appears to be in the realm of speech or interview given by applicant no1 before the telemedia and there being nothing more to suggest that actual threat was issued by the applicant to the victim, prima-facie, a case for bail is made out based upon the reasoning as recorded above in composite”, the Court observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered that,
Let the applicants Sachin Sharma and Subham Gurjar be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each separately to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:
(a) The applicants shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;
(b) The applicants shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused or suspected of the commission; and
(c) The applicants shall not 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.