Allahabad High Court
Usman vs State Of U.P. on 23 May, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88461
Reserved on 14.05.2025
Delivered on 23.05.2025
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36050 of 2024
Applicant :- Usman
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Dwivedi,Rajiv Lochan Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vishal Agarwal
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri M. P. Rai, learned counsel for the informant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
There is allegation in the first information report that the husband of the informant, Afjaal @ Monu, left his house on 11.01.2024 at about 12.40 hours. When he did not returned up to 13.01.2024, a missing report was lodged. The family of the deceased and informant were making his search and came to know that the deceased was seen drinking liquor with applicant, Usman, by uncle of deceased, Mehraj on 11.01.2024 in the country made liquor shop. On the same day applicant was seen in the CCTV footage going on the scooty of deceased. On the same evening co-accused, Mehtab, was seen going towards jungle with spade by Shahjad. Co-accused Narendra Saini was also seen along with Mehtab. It was alleged in the first information report that applicant and two co-accused have caused the murder of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no evidence against the applicant except his confessional statement. He has submitted that there is no eye witness of the incident nor any incriminating recovery has been made from the applicant. Applicant had no motive to commit murder of the deceased. False statements were recorded to falsely implicate the applicant. The scooty and the mobile phone of the deceased were not recovered by the police. The dead body recovered was not of the deceased as clear from the post mortem of the deceased. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 21.01.2024 when the deceased went missing on 11.01.2024. Dead body was found to be 10 days old. Applicant is in jail since 20.1.2024 and has no previous criminal history. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstance is not completed.
Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has submitted that on 11.01.2024, the accused applicant was seen travelling together with co-accused, Mehtab on a blue colour scooty belonging to the deceased. The location of the deceased was found on the place of incident, as per C.D.R report collected by the Investigating Officer.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.
This court after hearing the rival submissions finds that the prosecution evidence begun and PW-I and PW-II have been examined. P.W-I has repeated the contents of the first information report in her statement before the trial court also. PW-II has also been examined but there is nothing in the statement which clearly implicate the applicant. Co-accused, Mehtab, has been enlarged by coordinate bench of this court vide Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.30617 of 2024. As per report of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deoband, nine prosecution witnesses have been examined therefore, there is no possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence. Another co-accused Irfan @ Chirchinda, has also been enlarged on bail in Crl. Misc. Bail Application no.27169 of 2024.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and 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.
Let the applicant, Usman, involved in Case Crime No.27 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201, 34, 120B I.P.C, Police Station Deoband, District- Saharanpur 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is 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 him in accordance with law.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 23.5.2025
SS
