The Allahabad High Court has allowed the bail application of Faheem Khan, accused of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in Bareilly’s Nawabganj police station.
A Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain passed this order while hearing a Criminal misc Bail Application filed by Faheem Khan.
The application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case under Sections 304, 452, 147, 323, 34 IPC, Police Station- Nawabganj, District Bareilly, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by co-ordinate bench of the Court order dated 1.9.2022 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application and when the Court, who rejected the first bail application of the applicant, released the instant second bail application then the matter is listed before the bench as the bench is dealing with the matter after the order of the Chief Justice.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that although, this is the second bail application of the applicant and on 1.9.2022, the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed and at the time of rejecting the first bail application of the applicant, the coordinate bench of the Court observed that although, in the FIR general role has been attributed to all the accused persons but in their statements witnesses gave specific role to the applicant of causing head injury to the deceased but at the time of deciding first bail application of the applicant, full and correct facts could not be placed before the Court.
He further submitted that admittedly in the FIR only general role has been attributed to all the accused persons and from the perusal of the statements of all the witnesses including informant, it appears that although, they stated that applicant tossed the head of the deceased on the wall several times but they further stated that thereafter other accused persons also tossed him on the wall and thereafter all the accused persons tossed the deceased on the ground, therefore, from the statements of the witnesses, it appears that applicant is not the only accused, who tossed the head of the deceased on the wall and the ground but all the accused persons tossed the head of the deceased on the wall and the ground.
He also submitted that from the perusal of the statement of the doctor, which also could not be placed at the time of first bail application, it appears that deceased did not sustain any visible injury and this fact completely belies the statements of the witnesses, therefore, considering this fact, applicant may be released on bail.
He said that all the accused persons have already been enlarged on bail and in view of the alleged eyewitnesses, the case of the applicant is at par with them.
Per contra, AGA as well as counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail but could dispute the fact that from the statements of the eye-witnesses it appears that there is allegation against the other accused persons also that they caused head injury to the deceased along with the applicant and doctor in his statement categorically stated that no external injury was found on the body of the deceased.
“Although, this is the second bail application but at the time of deciding first bail application, the co-ordinate bench of the Court categorically stated that as specific role of causing head injury has been attributed to the applicant in the statements of the witnesses, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail but from the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses, it appears that they also made allegation against other accused persons and it cannot be reflected from their statements that applicant alone was liable for the head injury of the deceased and it appears that full and correct facts could not be placed before the Court at the time of deciding first bail application of the applicant.
Further, from the perusal of the statement of the doctor, which has been annexed in the second bail application, it appears that the deceased did not sustain any visible injury and this fact also could not be placed before the Court at the time of deciding first bail application.
Further, all the other accused persons have already been released on bail and in view of the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses, the case of the applicant is at par with them. Therefore, from the discussion made above, in my view the applicant is entitled to be released on bail”, the Court observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered that,
Let the applicant- Faheem Khan be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before the Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.