Jafar Ali vs State of Uttarakhand - 2022 Supreme(UK) 415

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(UK) 415

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Jafar Ali - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 2799 of 2022
Decided On : 23-12-2022

Advocates appeared:
Vikas Anand, Advocate, Lalit Miglani, Advocate

Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the applicant who was in judicial custody under various sections of the Indian Penal Code after considering the contradictions in the statements of the victims and finding that the applicant was not the actual shooter but had common intention to cause injuries.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant was in judicial custody in a case involving firing and causing injuries to individuals. The applicant sought release on bail.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there were contradictions in the statements of the victims and that the applicant was not the actual shooter but had common intention to cause injuries. The court concluded that the case was fit for bail and granted the applicant's release on bail.
Issues: The issues involved the contradictions in the statements of the victims, the role of the applicant in the incident, and the question of common intention to cause injuries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the contradictions in the statements of the victims, the absence of the applicant as the actual shooter, and the assertion of common intention to cause injuries.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant Jafar Ali is in judicial custody in FIR No.154 of 2022, under Sections 147, 307, 34 and 452 IPC, Police Station Gadarpur, District- Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 30.07.2022, at 8:00 PM, the applicant along with the co-accused entered into the house of the informants and fired him, due to which, Aizan and Tabasum B sustained injuries of pallets.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there are great contradictions in the statements of the victims recorded during investigation; the applicant is not the actual shooter, as such.

5. In fact, when the bail application was filed, on 19.12.2022, the Court wanted to know the exact role fo the applicant.

6. Today, learned State Counsel gives a statement that the statement of the victim, the injuries report and the statements of other witnesses have already been filed. Therefore, no counter affidavit is required in the matter. The entire material is already available.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that though the applicant is not the actual shooter but he would submit that the applicant had common intention to cause injuries to the injured.

8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

9. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document