Banti @ Aftab Alam vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 8879 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Banti @ Aftab Alam vs State Of U.P. on 10 April, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52972
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19858 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Banti @ Aftab Alam
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi,Shiv Kumar Pal,Sujan Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
 

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Shiv Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail inCase Crime No. 627 of 2017, Session Trial No. 476 of 2017, U/S 302, 307, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Chaubepur, District Varanasi,, during the pendency of trial.

4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.34643 of 2018 and the said order is reproduced as follows :

"1. List has been revised. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.

2. Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd.Aslam, learned counsel for the first informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 627 of 2017, Session Trial No. 476 of 2017, U/S 302, 307, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Chaubepur, District Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and his father Mattal are said to have assaulted the brother of the informant on 18.9.2017 at 5.30 pm rendering him unconscious on the spot. As the another brother of the informant Sholey, rushed to save him, he was also assaulted by the applicant and his father causing him grievous injury including fracture to his right wrist.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has stated that the FIR is delayed by about five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The co-accused person Mattal @ Islam has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 13.3.2018 and the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity as the statement of the injured person has been recorded in Court as P.W. 3 and has levelled similar allegations against both the accused persons. Learned counsel has next stated that although as per the order passed on 13.3.2018, the case of the applicant has been distinguished on account of the statement of the injured person, P.W. 3 recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has indicated several other contradictions in the statement of the injured persons and the other witnesses. Learned counsel has also submitted that no case under Section 302 IPC is made out, rather the case, if any, against the applicant made out, is under Section 304 (ii) IPC.

6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.9.2017. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the order dated 13.3.2018 has categorically mentioned that the case of the applicant is distinguishable to the co-accused person Mattal @ Islam, who has already been enlarged on bail and it has been stated that the trial is reaching its conclusive end as almost all the witnesses are complete and only one formal witness remains to be examined. Learned counsel has next stated that at this stage, the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, if any, cannot be appreciated. The same can be appreciated at the stage of the pronouncement of the judgement by the court concerned.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

10. However, it is directed that the court below may proceed with the trial and reach at the logical conclusion expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment, within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

11. 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. "

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Till date only 9 witnesses have been examined and prosecution proposes to examine 13 witnesses in all, as such, four more witnesses are to be examined. There is no likelihood of the conclusion of trial in near future. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.09.2017 i.e. more than seven and half years and his fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, has observed as under:-

"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."

6. It has been further argued that the co-accused person Mattal has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. The applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of parity also. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the main accused person although he has stated that the allegations were made against the applicant, his father Mattal.

8. This Court had called for a status of trial from the trial court and the said status report indicates that nine witnesses have been examined and four more witnesses are proposed to be examined by the prosecution. As such, it seems that the trial shall take some more time to be concluded as the prosecution evidence has not concluded as yet.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the fact that applicant is languishing in jail since more than seven and a half years, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant- Banti @ Aftab Alam, involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.

(v) 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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

Order Date :- 10.4.2025

Priya

(Justice Krishan Pahal)