Allahabad High Court
Bhoora And Another vs State Of U.P. on 19 November, 2014
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
? A.F.R.
Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36875 of 2014
Applicant :- Bhoora And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Varinder Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Sri Ashutosh Shukla, advocate has filed parcha on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Varinder Singh, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel and A.G.A. Perused the record.
The contention of the applicants' counsel is that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and nature of circumstances is inconclusive and does not give rise to a definite inference of guilt of the applicants. Further submission is that though it is said that on 5.7.2014 at about 7.30 p.m. the deceased was taken away from his house by the applicants along with other co-accused and did not return which resulted in his search made by his family members yet the F.I.R.was lodged on the next day at 4.10 p.m. The aforesaid delay in lodging the F.I.R. is unexplained according to counsel. Further submission is that subsequently an eyewitness namely, Shaukeen Shah was artificially introduced with the claim to have witnessed the occurrence and it is said that he saw the accused-applicants along with other co-accused beating the deceased with lathi and danda. This disclosure was made in an affidavit dated 31.7.2014.i.e. to say after about 25 days of the occurrence. The contention is that the explanation given by this witness for not disclosing this fact of having witnessed the occurrence earlier, is that he was threatened by the accused. Another explanation is that on 7.7.2014 i.e. to say one day after the occurrence he alleges to have disclosed this fact to babu, the father of the deceased. This explanation falls to ground because Babu, the father of the deceased never made any effort to produce this eyewitness before the I.O. nor this witness on its own approached the I.O. and disclosed the aforesaid facts of being the eye witness of the occurrence. The contention is that this highly belated disclosure detracts substantially from the testimonial of the witness and his testimony is rendered wholly unreliable. It is apparently manifest that he has been falsely introduced as the witness of the occurrence. It has also been submitted that some attempt has also been made by the I.O. to establish that the deceased was having an illicit relationship with the sister of the accused and with regard to the same call details of mobile phones were collected. According to counsel, this circumstance can utmost give rise to the inference that there might have been some motive for the accused Bhoora to commit the offence but the circumstance is wholly inconclusive.
In rebuttal, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that both the mobile phones which belonged to the deceased have been recovered from the house of the accused Bhoora and the call details which have been collected by the I.O. are sufficient to indicate that deceased had used the phone before his death actively, indicating a definite inference that it was taken away from the deceased by the accused Bhoora after murder. The submission is that recovery of the two aforesaid mobile phones from the house of accused Bhoora is a conclusively incriminating circumstance against him indicating his definite involvement in the crime. It has been fairly conceded by the complainant's counsel and also learned A.G.A. that so far as applicant no.2-Sageer Ahamed is concerned, there is no recovery made against him. Only circumstance against him is that he was last seen with the deceased which was affirmed by the witnesses.
Having perused the record in the light of the rival submissions made at the bar this Court is of the view that the applicant-Bhoora has not made out any case for bail at this stage. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant No.1 Bhoora is rejected.
With regard to another applicant this Court is of the view that the applicant No.2 Sageer Ahamed has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Sageer Ahamed involved in case crime no. 133 of 2014, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., P.S. Khajuria, district Rampur be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 19.11.2014
Rkb
