Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3875 (ALL)

Shaqeel Ahmad v. State of U. P.

2016-12-01

AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT Amar Singh Chauhan,J. Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. By means of this application, the applicant Shaqeel Ahmad, who is involved in Case Crime No. 372 of 2015, Sessions Trial No. 779 of 2015 under Sections 302, 201, 404 IPC P.S. Baheri, District Bareilly, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that an FIR was lodged on 27.9.2015 with the allegation that the marriage of the deceased Leelawati was solemnized with the Purshotam about ten years ago. After the marriage, the husband and her in laws have started to harass her and thrown out from his house. It is further submitted that one Jaiveer has informed to the police on 24.9.2015 that the dead body of unknown women is lying in the field. The name of the accused came into the light in the statement of the co-accused Sheeshpal, who has illicit relation with the deceased and a quarrel took place between the accused and deceased. The mobile of deceased was recovered from the possession of the co-accused Sheeshpal. It is also submitted that the police has planted knife and some ornaments of the deceased and nothing is recovered from the pointing out of the applicant. The prosecution story is false and concocted. Moreover, there is no motive assigned to the applicant. He has no reported criminal antecedents to his credit and is in jail since 18.10.2015. Hence the applicant is entitled to bail. Per contra, learned AGA contended that on the pointing out of the accused-applicant jewellery relating to the deceased was recovered. It has come in the evidence that the role of the co-accused Sheeshpal is to catching hold of the deceased and role of the applicant is assigned to cause knife blows on the body of the deceased. The knife was also recovered at the pointing out of the applicant which was said to be used in the murder of the deceased. The call detail of the mobile phone of the applicant and Sheeshpal shows that before the commission of the offence, they were regularly talking to each other. As per postmortem report, four incised wounds were found on the abdomen and hand of deceased and cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as result of anti-mortem injuries. The call detail of the mobile phone of the applicant and Sheeshpal shows that before the commission of the offence, they were regularly talking to each other. As per postmortem report, four incised wounds were found on the abdomen and hand of deceased and cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as result of anti-mortem injuries. There is active participation of applicant. Having considered the facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the offence, submissions made on behalf of the parties, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.