Allahabad High Court
Faizan vs State Of U.P. on 13 May, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78274
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5700 of 2025
Applicant :- Faizan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ambreen Masroor,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dhirendra Kumar Verma,G.A.,Mohammad Zakir,Renu Swarnkar
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri S.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohammad Zakir, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
3. Despite name of Sri Mohammad Zakir being printed in the cause list, there is no vakalatnama on the record. Office to trace it out and place it on the record and make a note about it in the order sheet.
4. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant- Faizan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 400 of 2023, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at P.S.- Anoopshahar, District- Bulandshahar.
5. Argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the F.I.R. of the present matter was lodged on 07.12.2023 by Mohammad Arif@Pappan against the applicant and 05 other accused persons, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. In the said matter Irfan had received injuries. It is submitted that the applicant was previously granted bail in the matter vide order dated 23.4.2024 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15402 of 2024 in the sections in which the F.I.R. was lodged at the time when Irfan was in injured condition. The said order has been placed before the Court which reads as under:-
"Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sadurl Islam Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Faizan under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 400 of 2023 (Criminal Case No. 4001 of 2024) for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 504, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station- Anoopshahar, District- Bulandshahar during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Bulandshar vide order dated 04.04.2024.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the First Information Report dated 7.12.2023 has been lodged after about 10 hours of the incident without any explanation of delay. It is further submitted that as per the medical evidence, three persons each sustained injury one lacerated wound. It is further submitted that general role has been assigned to six persons including the applicant. No specific role has been attributed to the present applicant.
It is further submitted that co-accused Amir, Sorib @Soriv @Saorif, have already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 11.3.2024 and 28.3.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 6843 of 2024 and 7948 of 2024. He has next argued that applicant has criminal history of four other cases, which has been explained in paragraph no. 20 of the affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.12.2023.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and another, (2012) 9 SCC 446 and Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 wherein the Apex Court has observed that pendency of other criminal cases against the accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
It is well settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception and refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution [Vide State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.]
No material or circumstances has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witnesses in previous criminal history.
Keeping in mind, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
Let applicant, Faizan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(i) 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.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.
(iv) 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 the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.
The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."
6. It is submitted that subsequently on 14.5.2024 Irfan died and then the present matter was converted into a case under Section 302 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed before the Court the post mortem examination report of the deceased Irfan, a perusal of which goes to show that he was found to have received three ante mortem injuries which reads as under:-
(1) Old scar mark present over right lateral side of skull extending from forehead to upward size 19 CM x 01CM. A big bulge present adjacent to scar mark on right lateral side. On exploration there is no parieto-temporal bone present, directly brain matter seen.
(2) Old scar mark present over left side back of skull with size 11CM x 02CM.
(3) Multiple bed sore present over lower back gluteal region and behind both heel (05 in number) size varies from 05 CM x 03 CM to 12CM x 08 CM
Note- On exploration of chest and thorasic cavity after dissection of lungs multiple pus pockets present in both lungs.
7. It is submitted that cause of death has been opined as shock as a result of ante mortem septicemia. It is submitted that now the present bail application has been filed under Section 302 I.P.C. It is submitted while placing para-36 of the affidavit that the applicant has criminal history of six cases including the present case which have been duly disclosed and explained, which were also considered initially when he was granted bail vide order dated 23.4.2024. It is submitted that co-accused Zaheer, Amir, Rahees and Qasim alias Qashif have been granted bail by other Bench of this Court vide orders dated 06.1.2025, 06.1.2025, 06.1.2025 and 06.1.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29244 of 2024, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27673 of 2024, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29201 of 2024 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29258 of 2024 respectively, copies of the said orders have been placed before the Court which are taken on record. The applicant is in jail since 06.9.2024.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned State counsel vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased died due to injuries received by him earlier after which he remained in coma and then septicemia developed which was the cause of death. It is submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there are allegations against him. He has criminal antecedents. It is submitted that thus the prayer for bail be rejected. In so far as the argument regarding factual aspect of the matter as raised by learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, the same is not disputed by learned counsels for the first informant and the State.
9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that applicant was previously granted bail in the matter in the sections in which the F.I.R. was lodged at the time when Irfan was in injured condition. Subsequently on 14.5.2024 Irfan died and then the present matter was converted into a case under Section 302 I.P.C. The applicant has criminal history of six cases including the present case which have been duly disclosed and explained, which were also considered initially when he was granted bail vide order dated 23.4.2024. Co-accused Zaheer, Amir, Rahees and Qasim alias Qashif have been granted bail under present converted section by other Bench of this Court.
10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
11. Let the applicant- Faizan, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails 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 I.P.C.
(V) The applicant 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 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
12. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
13. The bail application is allowed.
14. After this order was passed learned counsel for the first informant submits that trial of the matter be expedited.
15. Although the Apex Court in categorical terms in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. & Ors.: 2024 INSC 150, has held that an order expediting the trial should not be passed, but since learned counsel for the first informant makes a prayer for expediting the trial, it is provided that he may file an application for expeditious disposal of the trial of the case before the court concerned within two weeks from today, which may as per its load of work, diary and pendency of cases, pass appropriate orders on the same.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Order Date :- 13.5.2025
Naresh
