Allahabad High Court
Faeem @ Faizan vs State Of U.P. on 11 April, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21721 of 2018
Applicant :- Faeem @ Faizan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Zafar Abbas
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Jafar Abbas, learned counsel for applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.969 of 2017, under Sections 302, 201, 392, 411 IPC, Police Station Katghar, District Moradabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that this Court had passed a detailed order on 29.11.2019 and had directed the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. Learned counsel has further stated that during trial, only six prosecution witnesses could be examined. The applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up later on in the statement of the informant itself on the basis of information received from the other witnesses. The other witnesses, namely, Ruchi Parveen and Mushahid, are said to have seen the applicant with the deceased person as a last scene witnesses. Learned counsel has further stated that Mushahid has been examined in court as PW-4 and has not supported the prosecution story and resiled from his earlier statement and has been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring him hostile. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.10.2017. The Fundamental Rights of the applicant stand violated enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that PW-1 is the informant and has categorically reiterated the allegations levelled before the Investigating Officer and has stated that he carried animosity with the applicant, he would have nominated them at the outset, but after gathering the information from the persons of the locality, he has deposed against them. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that the trial is at its conclusive end and the applicant is not entitled for bail.
6. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that already six witnesses have been examined and the trial is at its conclusive end and the star witness Ruchi Parveen could not be examined, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
7. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
Order Date :- 11.4.2023
Ravi Kant
