Allahabad High Court

Leela @ Mobin vs State Of U.P. on 3 July, 2024

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:107996
 
Reserved on: 28.03.2024
 
Delivered on: 03.07.2024
 
Court No. - 64
 
1. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35560 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Leela @ Mobin
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Prakash,Saurabh Chaturvedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Prasad Mishra
 
Connected with
 
2. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43115 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Saleem
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- A.Z.Khan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
Connected with
 
3. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41103 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Rakib
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Pathak,Harshit Pathak
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
Connected with
 
4. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47939 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Usmaan
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Prakash,Saurabh Chaturvedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr. I.K. Chaturvedi, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Saurabh Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for applicants-Leela @ Mobin and Usmaan, Mr. A. Z. Khan, the learned counsel for applicant-Saleem, Mr. Harshit Pathak, the learned counsel for applicant-Rakib and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. These applications for bail have been filed by applicants- Leela @ Mobin, Saleem, Rakib and Usmaan seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 14 of 2022, under Sections 302/34, 452/34 IPC, Police Station-Badagaon, District-Saharanpur during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 1402 of 2022 (State Vs. Rakib and Others), under Sections 302, 452, 34 IPC, Police Station-Badagaon, District-Saharanpur now pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Bara, District-Saharanpur.

4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 02.02.2022, at about 04-05 a.m., a prompt F.I.R. dated 02.02.2022 was lodged by first informant-Rashid (brother of deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No. 14 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302 IPC IPC, Police Station-Badagaon, District-Saharanpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R., 5 persons namely (1) Bhoora, (2) Usmann, (3) Leela @ Mobin, (4) Saleem and (5) Inaam have been nominated as named accused, whereas an unknown person has also been arraigned as an accused.

5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused are alleged to have committed the murder of Asif (brother of deceased) and are further alleged to have exhorted that the first informant shall also be put to death.

6. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. He visited the place of occurrence and recovered the dead body of deceased. Thereafter, the inquest (Panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted on 02.02.2022. In the opinion of witnesses of inquest (Panch witnesses), the nature of death of deceased was categorized as homicidal. The cause of death of deceased was opined as stabbed wounds caused by a knife. Subsequent to above, post mortem of the body of deceased was conducted on the same day i.e. 02.02.2022. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted autopsy of the body of deceased, the cause of death of deceased was Immediate Shock and Haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The Autopsy Surgeon found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased:-

"1. Incised wound of size 7x2cm on (Rt.) side neck just below (Rt.) mandible.

2. I.W. size 1x0.5cm on (Rt.) side neck 1.5cm below from Injury No.(1)

3. I.W. 2.5x2.0cm on front of (Rt.) clavicular back area

4. Multiple incised wound 7x3cm on front of (Lt.) side neck 4cm below (Lt.) mandible.

5. I.W. 2x1cm on back of (Rt.) forarm 10cm below (Rt.) forearm

6. I.W. 10cmx3cm on palmar aspect of (Rt.) hand extending to (Rt.) thumb with underlying fracture (Rt.) thumb metacarpal bone

7. I.W. 2x0.5cm on (Rt.) iliac crest region.

8. I.W. 4x3cm on front of (Rt.) side chest 9cm below nipple at 7 O clock position

9. I.W. 11x5cm on front of (Rt.) side abdomen but blood (Rt.) side abdomen but blood (Rt.) side chest & loops of conjuncture.coming out.

10. I.W. 3x1cm on back of (Rt.) side abdomen

11. Multiple I.W. size 5x3cm on outer & back side of (Lt.) side chest.

12. Multiple I.W. 6x5cm on back & outer aspect of (Lt.) side abdomen

13. Abrasion 3x2cm on front of (Rt.) knee."

9. Having undertaken the aforementioned exercise, Investigating officer proceeded to prepare the site plan regarding the place of occurrence. He also recorded the statement of first informant Rashid followed by the statements of Wasim and Idrish. Thereafter, Investigating Officer arrested two of the named accused namely Bhoora and Leela alias Mobin as is evident from C.D. Parcha No. 3. Investigating Officer, subsequently, received information from Police informer regarding complicity of not named accused Raqib in the crime in question also, as is explicit from C.D. Parcha No. 16. Accordingly, Investigating Officer obtained the C.D.R. report of Raqib. As per the said C.D.R. report, name of not named accused Zulfiqar alias Rana came to surface. Thereafter, Investigating Officer examined one Mobin, son of Rashid, wherefrom it was gathered that an extrajudicial confession was made by Raqib before Mobin that two not named accused namely Mobin, son of Nazir and Zulfiqar alias Rana are also involved in the crime in question. This fact is eminent from C.D. Parcha No. 22. As per the aforesaid document, the motive behind the occurrence has emerged against Mobin son of Rashid. Accordingly, Investigating Officer arrested Raqib on 16.3.2022. On his pointing, a knife was recovered as is evident from C.D. Parcha No. 23. In view of above, Investigating Officer submitted an application dated 17.3.2022, under Section 169 Cr. P. C. before concerned Magistrate regarding release of named accused Bhoora and Leela alias Mobin. The said application was allowed on 22.3.2022. Accordingly, they were released. The same is explicit from C.D. Parcha Nos. 25 and 28. On 3.4.2022 Investigating Officer arrested not named accused Mobin and a blood stained knife was recovered on his pointing. The said fact is ascertainable from C.D. Parcha No. 34. Not named accused Zulfiqar alias Rana submitted a surrender application before Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, Shaharanpur and ultimately surrendered before Court on 5.4.2022 as is evident from C.D. Parcha No. 36. Investigating Officer also examined the following witnesses under Sections 161 Cr.P.C.:- (1) Riyasat S/o Yameen, (2) Mursaleen S/o Abbas, (3) Ahsan S/o Idresh, (4) Arshe Alam S/o Tasim, (5) Sadiq S/o Dilshad, (6) Mobin S/o Rashid, (7) Leela @ Dilshad, (8) Maroof S/o Shekhawat, (9) Masroor S/o Shekhawat, (10) Rashid Wafa Nadawi S/o Tahsim, (11) Amiruddin S/o Baduruddin, (12) Praveen S/o Ram Chandra, (13) Tahir Hasan S/o Fail Mohammad and (1) Ali Akeel Husain S/o Rahees.

10. On the basis of above and other material collected by the Investigating Officer and also the mitigating circumstances that emerged during the course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of named accused is not established in the crime in question but that of the following not named accused i.e. Rakib, Zulfiqar @ Rana and Mobeen is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the police report (charge sheet) dated 17.04.2022 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whereby aforementioned not named accused have been charge sheeted under Sections 302, 452 and 34 IPC.

11. After submission of aforementioned police report, cognizance was taken upon same by concerned Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Since offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, concerned Magistrate in compliance of Section 209 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Consequently, Sessions Case No. 020 of 2022 (State Vs. Rakib and Others), under Sections 302, 452, 34 IPC, Police Station-Badagaon, District-Saharanpur came to be registered and was pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Deoband. Subsequently, the trial was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Bara, District-Saharanpur and was therefore, re-registered as Sessions Trial No. 1402 of 2022 (State Vs. Rakib and Others), under Sections 302, 452, 34 IPC, Police Station-Badagaon, District-Saharanpur.

12. The concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. He, accordingly, framed charges against charge sheeted accused in compliance of Section 211 Cr.P.C. The charge sheeted accused denied the charges so framed and pleaded innocence. Resultantly, the trial procedure commenced.

13. Prosecution in discharge of it's burden to bring home the charges so framed against charge sheeted accused adduced PW-1, Rashid (first informant/brother of deceased) up to this stage. After the statement-in-chief of aforementioned witness was recorded before Court below, an application dated 08.09.2022 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution/first informant alleging therein that since as per the statement-in-chief of PW-1 and other material on record, the complicity of the prospective accused i.e. named in the FIR but not charge sheeted is also established in the crime in question, therefore, they be summoned to face trial in aforementioned Sessions Trial.

14. Ultimately, Court below upon evaluation of the allegations made in the aforementioned application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and examination of the same in the light of material on record as well as the statement-in-chief of PW-1 came to the conclusion that complicity of the prospective accused i.e. named in the FIR but not charge sheeted in the crime in question is prima-facie established, therefore, they are liable to be summoned to face trial. Accordingly, Court below, vide order dated 09.11.2022, allowed the application dated 08.09.2022, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution/first informant and consequently, summoned the prospective accused i.e. named in the FIR but not charge sheeted to face trial in aforementioned Sessions Trial.

15. From the above conspectus, it is thus apparent that applicants-Leela @ Mobin, Saleem and Usmaan are named but not charge sheeted accused. They have been summoned by Court below under Section 319 Cr.P.C., whereas applicant-Rakib is not named in the FIR but a charge sheeted accused.

16. Mr. I.K. Chaturvedi, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Saurabh Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for applicants-Leela @ Mobin and Usmaan submits that there are three charge sheeted accused, whereas five other accused have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Some of the charge sheeted accused/other accused summoned by Court below under Section 319 Cr.P.C. have been enlarged on bail. The details of the same are as under:-

(i). Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 56059 of 2022 (Mobin Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 12.06.2023.

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the informant and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 14 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 506, IPC, Police Station Badgaon, District Saharanpur during pendency of the trial.

It has been alleged by learned counsel for the applicant that he is not named in the First Information Report and his name has surfaced in the statement of an independent witness, namely, Mursaleem recorded on 05.03.2022 after a gap of about one month. It has further been contended that there are certain inconsistency in the statement of first informant and statement of independent witness, Mursaleem. Even the alleged recovery shown against the applicant is after a gap of one month. It has also been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case and there is no criminal history against the applicant as averred in para 23 of the affidavit of bail application. There is no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence. Applicant is languishing in jail since 03.04.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in trial.

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but they could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant-Mobin involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime similar to the offence of which he is accused after being released on bail.

(iv) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(v) The identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant."

(ii). Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24547 of 2023 (Bhoora Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 06.07.2023

"वर्तमान दाण्डिक प्रकीर्ण जमानत प्रार्थना पत्र, आवेदक भूरा की ओर से म 302/34/452/34 भा०दं०वि०, थाना बड़गांव जिला सहारनपुर में गया है। मु०अ०स० 14/2022, अन्तर्गत धारा जमानत पर मुक्त करने हेतु प्रस्तुत किया

आवेदक के विद्वान अधिवक्ता, एवं विद्वान अपर शासकीय अधिवक्ता को सुना तथा पत्रावली का परिशीलन किया।

आवेदक के विद्वान अधिवक्ता ने तर्क प्रस्तुत किया कि आवेदक को इस प्रकरण में गलत एवं फर्जी ढंग से झूठा फंसाया गया है, उसने कथित अपराध कारित नहीं किया है। इस प्रकरण में में मुख्य सह अभियुक्त मोबिन की जमानत, जमानत आवेदन पत्र सं. 56059 सन 2022 में आयपीठ के आदेश दि. इस न्यायालय की अन्य न्यायपीठ के 21.06.2023 द्वारा स्वीकार की जा चुकी है। आवेदक का केस भी उक्त सहअभियुक्त के समान है, इसलिए आवेदक भी सह अभियुक्त से समानता के आधार पर जमानत पाने का अधिकारी है। आवेदक निर्दोष है तथा वह इस प्रकरण में दि० 21.02.2023 से कारागार में निरुद्ध है इसलिए आवेदक को जमानत पर छोड़ दिया जाय।

विद्वान अपर शासकीय अधिवक्ता ने आवेदक के विद्वान अधिवक्ता के तर्को का प्रबल विरोध करते हुए तर्क प्रस्तुत किया कि आवेदक द्वारा कारित अपराध संज्ञेय एवं गंम्भीर प्रकृति का है, इसलिए आवेदक को जमानत पर न छोड़ा जाये।

आवेदक के विद्वान अधिवक्ता के तर्कों के परिप्रेक्ष्य में पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध सारवान तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों का समग्र रूप से अवलोकन करने के बाद, सबूतों की प्रकृति और किसी भी ठोस विरोधात्मक सामग्री की अनुपस्थिति एवं उपलब्ध सामग्री से छेड़छाड़ की संभावना न होने के तथ्य को देखते हुए मेरी राय में आवेदक को जमानत पर मुक्त करने का उपयुक्त आधार है।

अतः वाद के गुण दोष पर बिना कोई टिप्पणी किए हुए आवेदक को उपरोक्त वर्णित अपराध में संबंधित न्यायालय की सन्तुष्टि पर व्यक्तिगत बंध-पत्र एवं अधिक धनराशि के दो स्थानीय प्रतिभू प्रस्तुत करने पर निम्नलिखित शतों के साथ जमानत पर छोड़ दिया जाय।

1. आवेदक विवेचना या परीक्षण के दौरान अभियोजन साक्ष्यों के साथ छेड़‌छाड़ नहीं करेगा।

2. आवेदक अभियोजन साक्षियों व पीड़िता / शिकायतकर्ता को डरायेगा/धमकायेगा नहीं।

3. आवेदक न्यायालय के आदेशों का पालन करेगा, वह परीक्षण के दौरान बिना कोई अनावश्यक स्थगन लिए नियत तिथि पर न्यायालय में उपस्थित होगा तथा परीक्षण में ईमानदारी से सहयोग करेगा।

4. आवेदक जमानत पर रिहा होने के बाद जमानत की स्वतंत्रता का दुरूपयोग नहीं करेगा और किसी भी अपराधिक गतिविधि में लिप्त नहीं होगा न कोई अपराधिक कृत्य करेगा।

5. आवेदक प्रत्यक्ष या अप्रत्यक्ष रूप से मामले के तथ्यों से परिचित किसी भी व्यक्ति या पुलिस अधिकारियों को कोई प्रलोभन या धमकी नहीं देगा न ही उनसे कोई वायदा करेगा, जिसके कारण उन्हें न्यायालय में तथ्यों को उजागर करने से विरत रहना पड़े

उपरोक्त शतों में से किसी के उल्लंघन के मामले में, परीक्षण न्यायालय आवेदक की जमानत नियमानुसार रद्द करने को स्वतंत्र है।"

(iii). Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31545 of 2023 (Inaam Vs. Sate of U.P.) decided on 19.07.2023.

"1. Heard Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Suresh Bahadur Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 14 of 2022, under Sections 302/34, 452/24 IPC, Police Station Badgaon, District Saharanpur during pendency of the trial.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and four others and one unknown person and according to the FIR informant witnessed the applicant and other accused persons by saying that they have taken the revenge and they were having blood stained weapons and they have also stated to the informant that they have committed the murder of his brother and when he entered in the house then found that his brother was lying dead.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that admittedly informant did not witness the real incident but in spite of that due to previous enmity he nominated the applicant and other accused persons in the FIR but during investigation it was found that on the date and time of incident applicant was in Haryana (Karnal) and this fact is evident from the CDR and CCTV footage and from the statements of some independent witness and when during investigation complicity of applicant was found false then no charge-sheet was filed against him although after investigation charge-sheet was filed against Mobin, Rana @ Julfikar and Rakib.

5. He further submits that when the examination-in-chief of the informant was recorded by the trial court then prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C., applicant was summoned in the present matter. He further submits that along with applicant co-accused Bhoora was also summoned but he has been released on bail. He further submits that out of three persons against whom charge-sheet was filed one Mobin has been released on bail. He placed the bail orders of Mobin and Bhoora during the course of argument, which are taken on record and collectively marked as 'A'.

6. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

8. From the perusal of record, it appears that during investigation complicity of the applicant was found false and thereafter no charge-sheet was filed against him and charge-sheet was filed against three persons including co-accused Mobin and during trial on the basis of application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. applicant and co-accused Bhoora were summoned. Co-accused Bhoora and Mobin have already been enlarged on bail and case of applicant is at par with co-accused Bhoora and even on better than co-accused Mobin against whom charge-sheet was filed.

9. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant - Inaam be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

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

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

12. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

13. 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."

(iv). Criminal Appeal No. .... of 2023, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9615 of 2023 (Rashid Vs. State of U.P. and Another) decided on 06.10.2023

"Leave granted.

Heard Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The accused No. 1 (respondent No. 2) is represented by Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel. The State of Uttar Pradesh is represented by Dr. Vijendra Singh Mahndiyan, learned standing counsel.

The appeal was filed challenging the bail granted to the second respondent. Notice in this case was issued on 31.07.2023 with the following order:

"Permission to special leave petition is grawnted.

Heard Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Learned counsel would submits that only after dismissal of the special leave petition on 17.02.2023, the respondent No.2 surrendered. Soon thereafter, the High Court granted him bail only with the observation that he is in custody since 21.02.2023 and by further observing that there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence.

It is submitted that there is no parity of the respondent with Mobin (A-3) for whom it was clearly stated by the informant that Mobin (A-3) had no role in killing of the deceased Asif.

Issue notice, returnable in three weeks."

Admittedly the respondent No. 2 was named in the FIR unlike (A-3) with whom parity was considered by the High Court. Mobin The learned State counsel would submit that it is a case of murder with deadly weapons and the High Court should not have granted bail for an acccused only because he was in custody since 21.02.2023.

We have perused the FIR No. 0014 dated 02.02.2022 and take note of what is stated in the said FIR.

Considering the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court erred in granting bail for the murder accused who has been in custody for less than six months.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the bail order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the High Court.

In view of this order, the respondent No. 2 must surrender within two weeks from today.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

(v). Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33439 of 2023 (Zulfiqar @ Rana Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 31.07.2023.

"वर्तमान दाण्डिक प्रकीर्ण जमानत प्रार्थना पत्र, आवेदक जुल्फकार उर्फ राणा की ओर से मु०अ०सं० 14 सन 2022, अन्तर्गत धारा 302, 34, 452 भा०८०वि०, थाना बडगांव, जिला सहारनपुर में जमानत पर मुक्त करने हेतु प्रस्तुत किया गया है।

आवेदक के विद्वान अधिवक्ता एवं विद्वान अपर शासकीय अधिवक्ता को सुना तथा पत्रावली का परिशीलन किया।

आवेदक के विद्वान अधिवक्ता का कथन है कि आवेदक को इस प्रकरण में गलत एवं फर्जी तरीके से झूठा फंसाया गया है. उसने कथित अपराध कारित नहीं किया है, आवेदक प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट में नामजद अभियुक्त नहीं है, वादी मुकदमा द्वारा न्यायालय में दिए गए अपने बयान में प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट में नामजद अभियुक्तों के नाम लिये हैं तथा आवेदक द्वारा उसके भाई को न मारने का कथन किया गया है, आवेदक का कोई पूर्व आपराधिक इतिहास नहीं है। उनका यह भी कथन है कि इस प्रकरण में सह अभियुक्त मोबीन की जमानत, जमानत आवेदन पत्र सं० 56059 सन 2022 में इस न्यायालय की अन्य न्यायपीठ के आदेश दि० 12-6-2023 द्वारा स्वीकार की जा चुकी है, आवेदक निर्दोष है तथा वह इस प्रकरण में दि० 17-3-2022 से कारागार में निरूद्ध है. इसलिए आवेदक को जमानत पर छोड़ दिया जाय।

विद्वान अपर शासकीय अधिवक्ता ने आवेदक के विद्वान अधिवक्ता के तकों का प्रबल विरोध करते हुए तर्क प्रस्तुत किया कि आवेदक द्वारा कारित अपराध संज्ञेय एवं गम्भीर प्रकृति का है, इसलिए आवेदक को जमानत पर न छोडा जाय।

आवेदक के विद्वान अधिवक्ता के तर्को के परिप्रेक्ष्य में पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध सारवान तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों का समग्र रूप से अवलोकन करने के बाद, सबूतों की प्रकृति और किसी भी ठोस विरोधात्मक सामग्री की अनुपस्थिति एवं उपलब्ध सामग्री से छेड़छाड़ की संभावना न होने के तथ्य को देखते हुए मेरी राय में आवेदक को जमानत पर मुक्त करने का उपयुक्त आधार है।

अतः बाद के गुण दोष पर बिना कोई टिप्पणी किए हुए आवेदक को उपरोक्त वर्णित अपराध में संबंधित न्यायालय की सन्तुष्टि पर व्यक्तिगत बंध-पत्र एवं अधिक धनराशि के दो स्थानीय प्रतिभू प्रस्तुत करने पर निम्नलिखित शर्तों के साथ जमानत पर छोड़ दिया जाय।

1- आवेदक विवेचना या परीक्षण के दौरान अभियोजन साक्ष्यों के साथ छेड़छाड़ नहीं करेगा।

2- आवेदक अभियोजन साक्षियों व पीडित / शिकायतकर्ता को डरायेगा / धमकायेगा नहीं।

3- आवेदक न्यायालय के आदेशों का पालन करेगा, वह परीक्षण के दौरान बिना कोई अनावश्यक स्थगन लिए नियत तिथि पर न्यायालय में उपस्थित होगा तथा परीक्षण में ईमानदारी से सहयोग करेगा।

4- आवेदक जमानत पर रिहा होने के बाद जमानत की स्वतंत्रता का दुरूपयोग नहीं करेगा और किसी भी अपराधिक गतिविधि में लिप्त नहीं होगा न कोई अपराधिक कृत्य करेगा

5- आवेदक प्रत्यक्ष या अप्रत्यक्ष रूप से मामले के तथ्यों से परिचित किसी भी व्यक्ति या पुलिस अधिकारियों को कोई प्रलोभन या धमकी नहीं देगा न ही उनसे कोई वायदा करेगा, जिसके कारण उन्हें न्यायालय में तथ्यों को उजागर करने से विरत रहना पड़े।

उपरोक्त शर्तों में से किसी के उल्लंघन के मामले में, परीक्षण न्यायालय आवेदक की जमानत नियमानुसार रद्द करने को स्वतंत्र है।"

(vi). Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 10842 of 2024 (Bhoora Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 08.04.2024

"1. वर्तमान दाण्डिक प्रकीर्ण जमानत प्रार्थना पत्र, आवेदक भूरा की ओर से मु०अ०स० 14/2022, अन्तर्गत धारा 302/34/452/34 भा०दं०वि०, थाना बड़गांव, जिला सहारनपुर में जमानत पर मुक्त करने हेतु प्रस्तुत किया गया है।

2. आवेदक के विद्वान अधिवक्ता एवं विद्वान अपर शासकीय अधिवक्ता को सुना तथा पत्रावली का परिशीलन किया।

3. आवेदक के विद्वान अधिवक्ता का कथन किया कि यह आवेदक का यह द्वितीय जमानत आवेदन पत्र है, उसके प्रथम जमानत आवेदन पत्र संख्या 24547/2023 में आवेदक की जमानत इसी न्यायपीठ के आदेश दिनांक 06.07.2023 द्वारा स्वीकार की गयी थी किन्तु परिवादी के विद्वान अधिवक्ता द्वारा उक्त जमानत आदेश को माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के समक्ष चुनौती दी गयी। जिस पर माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा निम्नलिखित आदेश पारित किया गया।

"Heard Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The accused No. 1 (respondent No. 2) is represented by Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel. The State of Uttar Pradesh is presented by Dr. Vijendra Singh Mahndiyan, learned standing Counsel.

The appeal was filed challenging the bail granted to the Second respondent. Notice in this case was issued on 31.07.2023 th the following order:

"Permission to special leave petition is granted.

Heard Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Learned counsel would submits that only after dismissal of the special leave petition on 17.02.2023, the respondent No.2 surrendered. Soon thereafter, the High Court granted him bail only with the observation that he is in custody since 21.02.2023 and by further observing that there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence.

It is submitted that there is no parity of the respondent with Mobin (A-3) for whom it was clearly stated by the informant that Mobin (A-3) had no role in the killing of the deceased Asif.

Issue notice, returnable in three weeks. "

Admittedly the respondent No. 2 was named in the FIR unlike (A-3) with whom parity was considered by the High Court. Mobin The learned State counsel would submit that it is a case of murder with deadly weapons and the High Court should not have granted bail for an accused only because he was in custody since 21.02.2023.

We have perused the FIR No. 0014 dated 02.02.2022 and take note of what is stated in the said FIR.

Considering the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court erred in granting bail for the murder accused who has been in custody for less than six months.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the bail order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the High Court.

In view of this order, the respondent No. 2 must surrender within two weeks from today."

4. आवेदक के विद्वान अधिवक्ता का कथन है चूंकि माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के उपरोक्त आदेश के द्वारा आवेदक जमानत निरस्त कर दी गयी इसलिए आवेदक द्वारा इस न्यायालय के समक्ष यह द्वितीय जमानत आवेदन पत्र दाखिल किया गया है।

5. आवेदक के विद्वान अधिवक्ता ने तर्क प्रस्तुत किया कि आवेदक को इस प्रकरण में गलत एवं फर्जी ढंग से झूठा फंसाया गया है, उसने कथित अपराध कारित नहीं किया है, मामले के अभियोजन साक्षी सं. 01 राशिद के द्वारा अवर न्यायालय में तथाकथित घटना का समर्थन नहीं किया गया है और कहा कि घटना के अभियुक्तगण के हाथ में तलवार व चाकू से घटना कारित करने व मृतक आसिफ की हत्या करते हुए नहीं देखा। मैंने अपने पूर्व बयान में अभियुक्तगण को तलवार, चाकू लेकर घटना करने की बात बतायी थी। वह लोगों के कहने के अनुसार बतायी थी। इस प्रकार मामले के उक्त साक्षी पक्षद्रोही हो गया है। आवेदक निर्दोष है तथा वह इस प्रकरण में दि० 20.10.2023 से कारागार में निरुद्ध है इसलिए आवेदक को जमानत पर छोड़ दिया जाय।

6. विद्वान अपर शासकीय अधिवक्ता ने आवेदक के विद्वान अधिवक्ता के तर्कों का प्रबल विरोध करते हुए तर्क प्रस्तुत किया कि पूर्व में आवेदक की जमानत जमानत आवेदन पत्र संख्या 24547/2023 में इसी न्यायपीठ के आदेश दिनांक 06.07.2023 द्वारा सहअभियुक्त मोबीन से समानता के आधार पर जमानत दी गयी थी। जबकि आवेदक की भूमिका सह अभियुक्त से भिन्न थी, आवेदक द्वारा कारित अपराध संज्ञेय एवं गंभीर प्रकृति का है अतः उसे जमानत पर न छोडा जाये।

7. मैंने उभयपक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्ताओं के तकों पर गहनता पूर्वक विचार किया तथा पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्य समुचित रूप से परिशीलन किया

8. मेरे विचार से इस मामले से उद्भुत सत्र परीक्षण में विचारण न्यायालय में अभियोजन साक्षी 01 राशिद द्वारा तथाकथित घटना का समर्थन नहीं किया गया है और उसके द्वारा विचारण न्यायालय के समक्ष कहा गया है कि उसने अभियुक्तगण के हाथ में तलवार व चाकू होना नहीं देखा न ही उनके द्वारा मृतक की हत्या कारित करते देखा तथा इस साक्षी ने आगे यह भी कहा है कि उसने अपने पूर्व बयान में अभियुक्तगण द्वारा तलवार व चाकू से घटना कारित करने की जो बात बतायी थी वह लोगों के कहने के आधार पर बतायी थी इस प्रकार अभियोजन साक्षी संख्या 01 राशिद ने अभियोजन कथानक का समर्थन नहीं किया तथा वह पक्षद्रोही हो गया है इसलिए आवेदक के विद्वान अधिवक्ता के तकों के परिप्रेक्ष्य में पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध सारवान तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों का समग्र रूप से अवलोकन करने के बाद, सबूतों की प्रकृति और किसी भी ठोस विरोधात्मक सामग्री की अनुपस्थिति एवं उपलब्ध सामग्री से छेड़छाड़ की संभावना न होने के तथ्य को देखते हुए मेरी राय में आवेदक को जमानत पर मुक्त करने का उपयुक्त आधार है।

9. अतः वाद के गुण दोष पर बिना कोई टिप्पणी किए हुए आवेदक को उपरोक्त वर्णित अपराध में संबंधित न्यायालय की सन्तुष्टि पर व्यक्तिगत बंध-पत्र एवं अधिक धनराशि के दो स्थानीय प्रतिभू प्रस्तुत करने पर निम्नलिखित शतों के साथ जमानत पर छोड़ दिया जाय।

1. आवेदक विवेचना या परीक्षण के दौरान अभियोजन साक्ष्यों के साथ छेड़छाड़ नहीं करेगा।

5. आवेदक प्रत्यक्ष या अप्रत्यक्ष रूप से मामले के तथ्यों से परिचित किसी भी व्यक्ति या पुलिस अधिकारियों को कोई प्रलोभन या धमकी नहीं देगा न ही उनसे कोई वायदा करेगा जिसके कारण उन्हें न्यायालय में तथ्यों को उजागर करने से विरत रहना पड़े।

17. Though varied submissions have been urged by the learned Senior Counsel/learned counsel for applicants, the genesis of the same can be summarized as under:-

(a). There are three charge sheeted accused i.e. Mobin, Rakib and Zulfikar @ Rana and five such accused, who have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

(b). Charge sheeted accused Mobin and Zulfikar have already been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide orders dated 12.06.2023 and 31.07.2023 respectively.

(c). The case of charge sheeted accused Rakib is on better footing in comparison to bailed out co-accused Mobin inasmuch as, while on the pointing of co-accused Mobin, a blood stained knife was recovered, whereas on the pointing of applicant Rakib, simply a knife was recovered.

(d). Out of the five accused, who have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., two of the accused namely Bhoora and Inaam have already been enlarged on bail.

(e). Accused Bhoora was initially granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 06.07.2023, which was set aside by Apex Court, vide order date 06.10.2023.

(f). Subsequently, co-accused Bhoora has been enlarged on bail, vide order dated 08.04.2024.

(g). Up to this stage, only one prosecution witness has appeared before Court below i.e. PW-1 Rashid (first informant/brother of deceased). However, he has been declared hostile.

(h). There is no FSL report on record regarding the weapons recovered on the pointing of charge sheeted accused.

(i). The case of applicants-Leela @ Mobin, Saleem and Usmaan is similar and identical to that of two of the bailed out co-accused i.e. Bhoora and Inaam inasmuch as, they were all named in the FIR but exculpated in the police report dated 17.04.2022 submitted by the Investigating Officer under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

(j). Present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and therefore, there is no eye witness of the occurrence.

(k). The complicity of an accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence has to be judged in the light of the parameters laid down by Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 (Paragraph 152). However, up to this stage, the parameters laid down in aforementioned judgment for inferring the guilt of an accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence are not satisfied.

(l). The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution in respect of charge sheeted accused stands crystallized i.e. the applicant-Rakib. However, up to this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant-Rakib during the pendency of trial.

(m). The applicants-Leela @ Mobin, Saleem and Usmaan were summoned by Court below under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the statement-in-chief of PW-1, Rashid (first informant/brother of deceased). However, PW-1 has now been declared hostile. As such, there is no evidence against the aforementioned accused up to this stage.

(n). The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. i.e. charge sheeted was submitted on 17.04.2022. The trial is of the year, 2022. However, in spite of the fact that a period of more than 2 years has rolled by from the date of the charge sheet, no substantial progress has been made in the trial. Up to this stage, only one prosecution witness has been examined, whereas there are 17 prosecution witnesses of fact mentioned in the charge sheet. As such, there is no likelihood of the trial getting concluded in near future.

(o). Even otherwise, applicants are men of clean antecedents, inasmuch as they have no criminal history to their credit except the present one. Applicant-Rakib is in jail since 16.03.2022. Applicants Leela @ Mobin and Usmaan are in jail since 07.04.2023. Applicant-Saleem is in jail since 15.05.2023. As such, they have undergone substantial period of incarceration.

(p). On the above premise, it is submitted that applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

18. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature and gravity of offence, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of the applicants. However, the learned A.G.A. could not specifically dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned Senior Counsel/counsel for applicants.

19. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel/counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that the submissions urged by the learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel for applicants as noted in paragraph 17 of this order, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to these applications for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicants have made out a case for bail.

20. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed.

21. Let the applicants- Leela @ Mobin, Saleem, Rakib and Usmaan, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their 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 APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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.

(ii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

(iv) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANTS ARE 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 AGAINST THE THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANTS.

22. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on their bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the conditions mentioned above.

Order Date :- 03.07.2024

Vinay