Ateek Quraishi vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 2835 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ateek Quraishi vs State Of U.P. on 1 August, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129174
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42035 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Ateek Quraishi
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Hesamuddin Khan,Rajesh Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
 

1. List has been revised.

2. Sixth supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

3. Heard Sri Mohd. Hesamuddin Khan, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State.

4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.821 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station- Dhoomanganj, District- Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The marriage of the sister of the informant was solemnized with the applicant as per Muslim Rites in the year 2017. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry and the applicant was hellbent on marrying some other girl, as such, the deceased (sister of the informant) had gone to the house of the applicant and raised objection to the said Sagai ceremony.

6. Thereafter, the applicant called the victim to his house for compromise in the matter on 1.7.2021 and after sprinkling petrol over her set her afire. The deceased was admitted at Swaroop Rani Hospital, Prayagraj and she expired there at 01:00 a.m. on 2.7.2021.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

7. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the said offence.

8. The FIR is delayed by about sixteen hours from the death of deceased person and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is delayed by one day from the date of incident. The FIR was instituted U/s 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, but subsequently the said sections were deleted as it was found that no marriage was solemnized between husband and wife duo and the case was transformed to Sections 302, 201 I.P.C.

9. Eight accused persons were named in the FIR, but subsequently five persons were exonerated by the police and the final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted only against three persons including the applicant, his father and brother. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. The father and brother of the applicant have already been enlarged on bail, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

10. As far as the said video of the deceased person, which was given by the informant to the Investigating Officer, is concerned cannot tantamount to dying declaration as there is no certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act. Even the transcription of the said video has not been taken as per process of law. The said video has been perused by the Investigating Officer and he has observed that it was the applicant who had asked the victim to fetch petrol and had sprinkled it over her and had set her afire. There is no evidentiary value of the said video in the eyes of law.

11. Only two witnesses of fact have deposed against the applicant although there are certain contradictions in their statements and their statements are inconsistent to that of other witnesses. Subsequently, other witnesses PW-3, PW-4 & PW-5 were examined who have not supported the prosecution story and they have been declared hostile by the public prosecutor.

12. There is difference of timing of incident and death of the deceased person as per statement of informant and that of eye-witnesses. The occurrence is stated to be of 08:00 p.m. on 1.7.2021 and the death had occurred at 1:00 a.m. in the morning, as such, there is a difference of five hours only but it is stated by the witnesses that deceased had expired after 12 hours of the incident, as such, applicant is entitled for bail on account of the said discrepancy.

13. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained as no FIR has been produced by learned A.G.A. for the State to substantiate the criminal history. The applicant is languishing in jail since 6.7.2021 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

14. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that there is dying declaration of the deceased person which is in the form of video recording provided to the Investigating Officer and the victim has nominated the applicant.

15. The co-accused persons were granted bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the applicant only in the said dying declaration of the deceased person.

16. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has not been explained as Case Crime No.09 of 2017, registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Mahila Thana, District Prayagraj is also pending against him. The applicant has not annexed any order of bail in the said case, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

CONCLUSION:

17. The status report called from the trial court concerned indicates that two witnesses of fact have deposed against the applicant. The statement of PW-1 was recorded on 13.10.2023, 27.3.2024 and 4.4.2024. The statement of PW-2 was recorded on 11.6.2024, 14.6.2024 and 15.6.2024. The examination-in-chief of PW-3 (Shaheen Bano) was recorded on 12.7.2024 and the cross-examination was deferred. The said witness was cross-examined on 5.11.2024 and 9.6.2025 and she resiled from her earlier statement given on 12.7.2024, what transpired during the intervening period is not known.

18. The Supreme Court in Munnesh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Criminal) No(s). 1400/2025 has laid down that wrong averment regarding criminal antecedents of the accused, could itself be a ground for rejection of bail.

19. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the said dying declaration of the deceased person, which is in the form of video, coupled by the fact that statement of two witnesses of fact, i.e., PW-1 and PW-2 is intact and even the statement of PW-3 was intact during examination-in-chief and it seems that subsequently the witnesses have been won over and also taking into consideration the judgment of Supreme Court passed inMunnesh (Supra), I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

20. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

21. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme 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.

22. 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.

Order Date :- 1.8.2025

Vikas

(Justice Krishan Pahal)