Allahabad High Court
Md. Ajamal vs State Of U.P. on 23 July, 2021
Bench: Ram Krishna Gautam
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8178 of 2021
Applicant :- Md. Ajamal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Srivastava,Rajan Srivastava,Renu Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Dubey
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over bail application moved by applicant Md. Ajamal in Case Crime No. 110 of 2020 under Sections 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Naini, District Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 25.02.2020. He was not named in the first information report which was instantly got lodged on the same day of occurrence i.e. on 14.02.2021 at 22.04 p.m. by Sri Suresh Nandan Diwedi against unknown assailants with this contention that son of first informant Rahul Diwedi was at Baba restaurant where at about 07.20 p.m. a boy has given a fire arm shot resulting him injured but after being taken to SRN Hospital and being seen by the doctor thereat, he was declared brought dead. Information to informant was given by Santosh Yadav about this occurrence and he then got this report lodged. The same was the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. The name of the applicant was not clear in it. It was said to be an assault by some unknown assailant. Subsequently, an application was given by the informant with this contention that Ajamal and Nurain be arrested and then after justice will be done. Informant was not eye witness account nor it was given in his application as to how this accusation is being made but admittedly, there was a partnership of deceased with the applicant and subsequently this partnership ended causing some enmity and on the basis of it, this allegation was levelled. The only evidence against the applicant is the alleged confessional statement made to police by co-accused Nurain which is inadmissible. Even the owner of Baba restaurant/Hookah Bar in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. could not give the name of the assailant rather he said that he may identify the assailant in the identification parade but no such identification parade was got conducted for establishing the identity of the applicant.
The applicant though had been given four criminal antecedents in the counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A., out of which two of them are the cases of present case itself and in other two cases, final report has been submitted after investigation. Whereas, learned counsel for the informant in his counter has given seven cases as criminal antecedents out of which two of them are of present case, one is a case of Gangster Act lodged after this occurrence and other four of previous antecedents whereas in two cases there is judgment of acquittal and in one case, final report is there and the entire alleged criminal antecedent has been duly explained by the applicant in his rejoinder affidavit. More so, in the present case, there is no evidence at all against the applicant except mere suspicion and enmity for his implication. There is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice in case he is released om bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed with this contention of above criminal antecedent written in counter affidavit and the capability of restaurant keeper for identifying the accused which has yet not been conducted by the investigating officer. The likelihood of fleeing from justice has been taken by counsel for the informant.
Having heard and gone through materials placed on record, it is apparent that it was an instant report by the informant mentioning specifically the information given by Santosh Yadav to the informant and the informant was not present on spot. He had rushed there later. Santosh Yadav in his statement has not disclosed the name of the applicant whereas he has admitted the applicant to be in business partnership with the deceased and he was aware of the applicant but he has not named the applicant. The Hookah Bar keeper has also not named the applicant though he has said for capability to identify but no such identification was legally established. The applicant has been implicated merely on suspicion that no circumstantial link or eye witness account is present. Criminal antecedent has been duly explained.
Considering all the above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, a case for grant of bail, during trial, is made out.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Md. Ajamal involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.
4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.
5. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.
6. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by counsel of the party concerned.
7. The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad, and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.
Order Date :- 23.7.2021
Madhurima
