Punjab-Haryana High Court
Firoz Ahmad@ Pehalwan vs State Of Haryana on 16 April, 2024
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
2024:PHHC:051411
In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
CRM-M-17323-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 16.04.2024
Firoz Ahamad ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Kunal Muthreja, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.
*****
FIR DATE POLICE STATION OFFENCES
NO.
387 27.09.2022 Badshahpur, Gurugram 302, 201 IPC
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking
grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR.
2. The FIR in question was lodged pursuant to recovery of a dead body
by one Mohammad Ishaq. In the FIR Mohammad Ishaq stated that on
27.9.2022 at about 8.15 am when he was crossing the road so as to
access an empty space across the road, he saw a dead body lying
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-17323-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:051411
beside a tree and that injury marks could be seen on the head and face
of the said dead body.
3. It is the case of prosecution that the dead body came to be identified
to be of Ashu Ali after about a year by brother of the deceased.
Statement of Mairun wife of the deceased was also recorded on
20.09.2023 wherein she stated that she had been residing with Ashu
Ali since the last 7/8 years having married him in the year 2013. She
stated that about 1 ½ years back, Firoz Ahamad (petitioner) who runs
a scrap dealing shop had come to their house along with her husband
as the deceased had been working for Firoz Ahamad. She further
stated that her husband Ashu Ali was addicted to drugs and frequently
used to quarrel with her and at times would not even return back
home for 3/4 months at a stretch. It is stated that her husband had not
come back home since the last more than one year and she remained
under impression that he had gone somewhere as usual. She further
stated that on 26.9.2023 (incorrectly mentioned as 2023 though it
ought to be 2022), her husband Ashu Ali started harassing her at about
10.30/11 pm when he had returned home. She called Firoz Ahamad
who took her husband away while stating that he will reason out with
her husband. However, her husband did not return for one year and
now she had come to know that Firoz Ahamad had killed her
husband.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has falsely been
implicated in the present case solely on the basis of a statement made
by wife of the deceased after more than one year of occurrence. It has
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-17323-2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:051411
been submitted that apart from the aforesaid statement there is no
other evidence to connect him with the alleged murder of the
deceased inasmuch as it is apparently a case of blind murder. Learned
counsel submits that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last
more than 6 months and that he enjoys a clean record. It has further
been submitted that the trial has not even commenced till date and as
many as 30 PWs have been cited.
5. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that apart from
the statement made by wife of the deceased, even the petitioner
himself admitted his guilt. It has also been submitted that as a matter
of fact the petitioner was having extra-marital affair with the wife of
the deceased and had eliminated the deceased so as to give effect to
his designs. Learned State counsel has not disputed that the petitioner
has been behind bars since the last about 6 months and 21 days and
that none out of the cited 30 PWs has been examined till date and that
the petitioner is not involved in any other case.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
7. Admittedly, it is a case of blind murder wherein there is no eye-
witness to the alleged murder of the deceased. The petitioner came to
be nominated after more than one year of the recovery of dead body
of the deceased who had otherwise been missing since one year and
in respect of which no 'missing' report was ever lodged. The only
evidence against the petitioner is in the shape of statement of wife of
the deceased who has stated that on 26.09.2022, her husband had
quarreled with her and she had called the petitioner to her residence
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-17323-2024 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:051411
and that the deceased had left in the company of the petitioner. It will
be debatable as to such like evidence would be sufficient to bring
home the guilt of the petitioner in the absence of any other connecting
evidence. The petitioner enjoys a clean record and has been behind
bars since the last more than 6 months. Conclusion of trial is likely to
take time as none out of the cited 30 PWs has been examined till date.
Under these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by
further detaining the petitioner behind bars. The petition, as such, is
accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on
his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned
trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
16.04.2024 ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
mohan JUDGE
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
integrity of this order/judgment
