Tarik Ansari vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 14674 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:100513
 
Court No. - 76
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15806 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Tarik Ansari
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Akram
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Mohammad Akram, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Markandey Singh, learned Brief Holder for State and perused the records.

2. The applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.433 of 2022, under Sections 302, 328, 404, 34, 201, 411 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station-Hapur Dehat, District-Hapur after rejection of his Bail Application vide order dated 23.1.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hapur.

3. In the present case, a report was lodged by one Dinesh Tyagi on 30.9.2022 in the afternoon that a dead body was lying in his fields and he has witnessed the same on 29.9.2022 at about 7 A.M. F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons. It appears that dead body was identified by father of deceased. According to postmortem report, immediate cause of death was Shock and Haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries (three incised wounds and 4 stab wounds).

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that there is no direct evidence against the applicant and co-accused as well as no motive has been assigned to him. In the confessional statement of co-accused, it has come that deceased was having an extramarital affair with co-accused Jyoti. However, Jyoti was in love with co-accused Shoaib and since deceased was threatening to viral some unsolicited photographs of Jyoti, she along with her paramour (co-accused Shoaib) and applicant, hatched a conspiracy in order to eliminate deceased and they were successful in their conspiracy caused murder of deceased and threw his dead body in the field of informant.

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that co-accused Jyoti and Shoaib have already been granted bail by this Court and order thereof, are placed on record, but role of applicant was limited to the extent that he has participated in the crime by holding hands of deceased, whereas role of causing multiple injuries was on co-accused Shoaib, who is already bailed out. Applicant is languishing in jail since 4.10.2022, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial.

6. Learned Brief Holder for State has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that in the confessional statement of co-accused it has been specifically disclosed that applicant has also participated actively in the crime and he was present when the deceased was taken into a Car as well as during occurrence also specific role was assigned to him. Bail orders, whereby two co-accused have been granted bail are not accompanied with reasons as required by judgments of Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2022)3 SCC 501; and Brijmani Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar (2022) 4 SCC 397.

7.LAW ON BAIL - A SUMMARY

(A) The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail.

(B) Power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is of wide amplitude but not an unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course or in whimsical manner.

(C) While passing an order on an application for grant of bail, there is not need to record elaborate details to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal. However, a Court cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as allegations made against accused; nature and gravity of accusation; having common object or intention; severity of punishment if allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced by accused; tampering of evidence; character, behaviour, means, position and standing of accused; likelihood of offence being repeated; the frivolity in the case of prosecution; criminal antecedents of accused and a prima facie satisfaction of Court in support of charge against accused. The Court may also take note of participation or part of an unlawful assembly as well as that circumstantial evidence not being a ground to grant bail, if the evidence/ material collected establishes prima facie a complete chain of events. Parity may not be an only ground but remains a relevant factor for consideration of application for bail.

(D) Over crowding of jail and gross delay in disposal of cases when undertrials are forced to remain in jail (not due to their fault) may give rise to possible situations that may justify invocation of Article 21 of Constitution, may also be considered along with other factors.

(See, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs. Balchand @ Baliay (AIR 1977 SC 2447 : 1978 SCR (1) 535; Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118); State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010)14 SCC 496; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ishwarji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695; Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr :2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2022)3 SCC 501; and, Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559)

8. In the present case, deceased was eliminated by hatching conspiracy as his relationship with co-accused (wife of deceased) was coming in the way of her relationship with co-accused-Shoaib. Number of injuries show that it was a brutal murder as there are three incised wounds and four stab wounds. Two co-accused have already been granted bail as referred above, but the reasons given therein are not in terms of the judgments passed by Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Khokhar and Brijmani Devi (supra).

9. Still considering that there is no motive assigned to the applicant, his participation in the crime appears to be limited as well as nature of evidence collected in regard to conspiracy does not appear to be based on sufficient material, other relevant factor which also goes in favour of the applicant is that two co-accused have already been granted bail as referred above, applicant is languishing in jail since 4.10.2022, therefore, he has made out a case for bail.

10. Let the applicant-Tarik Ansari, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(iii) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

(iv) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months after release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

(v) Applicant has to appear on each and every date before learned Trial Court and any application for exemption of his appearance on vague ground could be a ground for cancellation of bail by learned Trial Court without even issuing notice.

11. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.

Order Date :- 10.5.2023

SB