Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1175 (ALL)

Aijaz Ahmad v. State of U. P.

2016-04-01

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2016
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. – This bail application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 855 of 2015, under Sections 364, 302, 120-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Ubhaon, District Ballia. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 3. Perused the record. 4. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the only tangible evidence available against the applicant is that of the deceased having been abducted by the applicant with the aid of other co-accused persons and subsequently the dead body of the deceased is said to have been recovered. Further submission is that so far as the actual incident of murder is concerned, no evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer as to who committed the murder of the deceased and how and under what circumstances, the same was committed. There is no witness of the actual occurrence of the murder. It was further submitted that no valid inference of murder can be legitimately drawn against the applicant and the maximum charge against the accused can be levelled under Section 364 I.P.C. Even this allegation of abduction is being denied by the applicant. It was also pointed out that when the first informant was examined by the Investigating Officer for the second time, he has denied his being the author of the F.I.R. and, therefore, the prosecution cannot draw any corroboration from such document which has been rendered an innocuous piece of paper having no bearing against the accused. Contention is that the alleged motive part of the evidence is also highly doubtful because the owner of the coaching centre has denied the factum of any dispute between the children in the coaching centre and the whole controversy involving the coaching centre has been said by owner of the coaching centre to be nothing except the conspiracy to defame the coaching centre. Submission is that in the aforesaid circumstances, the case against the applicant remained unproved, therefore, he should be released on bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has drawn the attention of the Court to the statements of two witnesses Mantu and Deepak who, according to him, are independent witnesses having no grouse against the applicant. Submission is that in the aforesaid circumstances, the case against the applicant remained unproved, therefore, he should be released on bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has drawn the attention of the Court to the statements of two witnesses Mantu and Deepak who, according to him, are independent witnesses having no grouse against the applicant. It has been stated by the witnesses that on 4.8.2015, both of the witnesses were standing along with the deceased where at about 6.30 P.M., three accused persons namely Aijaz, Golden and Ajahar, who were previously acquainted with the witnesses, came up on a motorcycle and after co-accused Ajahar alighted down from the motorcycle, the present applicant and co-accused Golden intimidated and made the deceased seated on the motorcycle forcibly. When protest was made, the witnesses were abused and thereafter they whisked away the deceased on the motorcycle from there by force. Further submission is that soon thereafter at about 7.30 P.M., it was discovered that the aforesaid deceased has been done to death. It was also submitted that there is no reason available to doubt or look suspiciously to the statements of these witnesses; and if the aforesaid fact of forcible abduction is proved then it is the onus of the applicant to explain as to what happened to the deceased after their abduction.The accused were under burden to discharge the onus that has been saddled on them by way of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The very fact that thereafter he was found killed, would also be sufficient to raise presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that the accused persons in all probability are the killers of the deceased. Even otherwise also, reading together the fact of forcible abduction of the deceased by the accused and the discovery of the dead body of the deceased soon thereafter, would also give rise to the logical and necessary inference against the applicant for being the author of the crime in absence of any explanation of the accused. Submission is that it has not been suggested on behalf of the accused that after the said abduction of the deceased by the accused, they parted ways and were no more in the company of each other and the murder might have been perpetrated by someone else. Submission is that it has not been suggested on behalf of the accused that after the said abduction of the deceased by the accused, they parted ways and were no more in the company of each other and the murder might have been perpetrated by someone else. The case of the applicant is of denial and not of explaining the aforesaid fact. It has also been submitted by learned A.G.A. that so far as the first informant's testimony and the corroborative value of the F.I.R. is concerned, he never claimed to be a witness of the occurrence and so even otherwise the version given in the F.I.R. was the version based on the information given by some other person and was thus having no great evidentiary value. So far as the motive part is concerned, the first informant has reiterated the same before the Investigating Officer. It was also submitted that it is a normal public tendency not to embroil oneself in any controversy and therefore it is no surprise that the owner of the coaching centre, who is a professional, preferred to keep distance and denied the incident related to his coaching. Contention is that the evidence available is sufficient to make out a strong prima facie case against the accused and he does not deserve bail. 6. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected. 7. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. Bail rejected.