Zeeshan Pasha vs State Of U.P. on 13 January, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Zeeshan Pasha vs State Of U.P. on 13 January, 2010
Court No. - 48

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34352 of 2009

Petitioner :- Zeeshan Pasha
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- Bharat Garg,Prashant Kumar Singh
Respondent Counsel :- Govt Advocate

Hon'ble Surendra Singh,J.

Applicant- Zeeshan Pasha seeks bail in Case Crime No. 184
of 2009 under Section 326 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines,
District Moradabad.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned
A.G.A. and also perused the material placed on record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the
statement of the independent witnesses, there was a dispute
between the wife and husband and in pursuance of which
Smt. Roshan tried to commit suicide inside the room. The
door of the room was broken and she was got admitted in
the hospital by the applicant himself on the same day.
Thereafter on 7.3.2009 a false and frivolous FIR was lodged
by the sister of the victim, Roshan. He has further contended
that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. He also pointed out that the
applicant is in jail since 4.11.2009 and the trial has not
concluded and is likely to consume some time. Moreover,
there is no history to his credit.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail
application and contended that the applicant is the husband
of the victim Smt. Roshan, who has suffered 60% burn injury
and as per her statements which are alleged to be recorded
on 11.4.2009 and 24.5.2009, the applicant is responsible for
the injury sustained by the victim, thus the applicant cannot
be exonerated from his liability at this stage and the present
bail application is liable to be rejected.

Taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material placed on
record, I do not find it a fit case to consider the bail prayer, at
this stage. The prayer for bail is declined and the application
is, therefore, rejected, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case.

The office is directed to send the copy of the order to the
District Judge/Trial Court immediately for the communication
and necessary compliance.

Order Date :- 13.1.2010

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information