Allahabad High Court
Iqbal vs State Of U.P. on 17 May, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:108120
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6501 of 2022
Applicant :- Iqbal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Preet Pal Singh Rathore
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Applicant -- Iqbal has approached this Court for bail in Case Crime No. 87 of 2019 under Sections 302, 364, 201, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Budaun (Sessions Trial No. 266 of 2019).
Informant (mother of deceased) lodged an F.I.R. on 04.03.2019 for offence under Section 364 I.P.C. against one named accused (Kasif) that his son has not returned since 02.03.2019 when he went at about 8 AM as daily wager at the house of accused where certain construction was going on. When informant and her husband contacted the named accused to ascertain whereabouts of their son, he became angry and hurled abuses and when they failed to locate their son, present F.I.R. was lodged.
Sri Preet Pal Singh Rathore, learned counsel for applicant submits that body of deceased was recovered from an open field on 04.03.2019 and case was converted under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C.; according to post mortem report, immediate cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries; there were abrasion on neck as well as thyroid cartilage was fractured and trachea was found ruptured.
Learned counsel further submits that police was not able to catch hold the real assailant and on same day, subsequent to lodging F.I.R., father of deceased made an application suspecting that his son was murdered by Shafikul Hasan @ Munna, Sheikhu, Umar and Mustafa.
Learned counsel further submits that evidence of certain witnesses were recorded during investigation, however, nothing concrete was come out from them; later on, witnesses of last seen were come into picture that on 02.03.2019, the victim was seen in company of applicant and other persons; alleged motive was also assigned that deceased has illicit relationship with wife of co-accused Kasif, therefore, he along with present applicant (brother of Kasif) along with other co-accused hatched a conspiracy and killed the deceased; co-accused Kasif has already been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court on 20.09.2022 in Bail Application No. 50157 of 2022.
While opposing bail, Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned A.G.A. for State submits that it has come during investigation as well as in the testimony of witnesses recorded during investigation that deceased has illicit relationship with wife of co-accused Kasif, therefore, present applicant who is brother of Kasif along with other co-accused hatched a consipiracy and caused death to deceased; he also submits that applicant has a huge criminal history of about 19 cases and, at least, in four cases, he has been convicted which involves offence of NDPS Act, Gangster Act, Section 302 I.P.C. and Arms Act; learned A.G.A. further submits that co-accused Kasif has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court, though reasons given therein are not accompanied in terms of Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2022) 3 SCC 501 and Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497.
This Court has sought status of trial from Trial Court. A report has been received that out of 12 proposed prosecution witnesses, testimony of six prosecution witnesses have been recorded and trial may be concluded within a period of three months.
It has been rightly pointed out by learned A.G.A. that in the testimony of witnesses recorded during trial, role of applicant has been specifically assigned that he along with his brother co-accused Kasif have caused death of deceased as he was having illicit relationship with wife of co-accused Kasif as well as that applicant has a huge criminal history and as referred above, in four cases of being heinous crime including murder and offence under NDPS, Gangster Act, etc., applicant has already been convicted. As such he appears to be a menace for society.
In these circumstances, considering report of Trial Court that trial can be concluded within a period of three months and taking note of aforesaid aspect of the case including nature of evidence before Trial Court and huge criminal history of applicant and that co-accused has been granted bail which may not be in terms of judgments of Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Khokhar and Brijmani Devi (supras), therefore, the applicant has failed to make out a case for bail.
Accordingly, bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 17.5.2023
Nirmal Sinha
