Julfkar vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 1326 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 899 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Julfkar
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramesh Prajapati
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ramesh Prajapati, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Julfkar under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 133 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Jansath, District- Muzaffar Nagar, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, vide order dated 15.12.2021.

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 21.07.2021 has been lodged by the son of the deceased against the applicant and 7 other named persons stating therein that on 21.07.2021 at 02:00 P.M. co-accused Aas Mohammad took his father with him and after some time he told that his father had been murdered. It is further alleged that the first informant has become the booth president of B.J.P. for some time and since then he is being harassed by co-accused Sharafat Baig, who is a history-sheeter person and he and his accomplices carry out the incident. The first informant has informed the police several times because the life of the first informant as well as his family members are in danger, as a result of which his father was murdered and the other co-accused persons are also involved in the said incident.

After lodging the first information report, inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted at the spot on 21.07.2021 at 21.40 hours. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 22.07.2021 at 2:40 p.m. As per postmortem report, two incised wound on the neck and lip respectively and one abraded contusion over left side of eyebrow were found on the persons of the deceased. Cause of death is shock and hemorrhage as a result of antemortem injury. Time of death is about one day. After recording the statement of the first informant and one Lakshya @ Kritagya @ Chiku and other prosecution witnesses, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet on 16.10.2021 against the applicant and other 5 named persons and the investigation is pending against two named persons namely Sharafat and Mehtab. The applicant was arrested on 24.07.2021.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that co-accused Aas Mohammad took the deceased with him from his house. It is further submitted that incriminating article, i.e., knife has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of the co-accused Aas Mohammad. It is further submitted that after 20 days of the incident a child namely Lakshya @ Kritagya @ Chiku has stated that the applicant and other 6 named persons were seen towards going to place of incident soon before the incident and except this evidence, no other evidence has been collected against the applicant. It has also been submitted that co-accused, Latafat, Umar Khan @ Sikkha, Mahtab, Israr @ Dabang and Sharafat having similar role, have already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 02.03.2022, 07.03.2022, 16.03.2022, 01.04.2022 & 20.04.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 50304 of 2021, 4703 of 2022, 55518 of 2022, 54063 of 2021 & 52343 of 2021 respectively and the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

(a) Co-accused Aas Mohammad took the deceased with him from his house;

(b) No incriminating articles has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of the applicant;

(c) Deceased sustained two incised wound and one abraded contusion were found on the persons of the deceased;

(d) A knife has been recovered from the pointing out of the co-accused Aas Mohammad, who took the father of the first informant with him from his house;

(e) Other co-accused, Latafat, Umar Khan @ Sikkha, Mahtab, Israr @ Dabang and Sharafat having similar role have been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court;

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

Let applicant, Julfkar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

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.

Order Date :- 25.4.2022

Ishan