Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1961 (ALL)

Nadeem Qureshi v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2017-08-24

PRATYUSH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Pratyush Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant, Nadeem Qureshi, who is involved in Case Crime No. 28 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 427, I.P.C. P.S.- Farah, District-Mathura. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Gopal Yadav. He further submits that except this confessional statement no other evidence could be collected against the present applicant in the present matter. He further submits that there is another version of the occurrence disclosed by the widow of the deceased in an application moved under section 156(3), Cr.P.C., 1973 for registering murder case against the police officers. He further submits that applicant has been shown to have criminal history of 140 cases, but in most of them he has been acquitted or discharged. Previous criminal history of the applicant has been detailed and explained in paras 5 to 7 of the supplementary affidavit and remaining criminal history has been explained in paras 23 and 24 of the rejoinder affidavit. 4. On behalf of State bail has been opposed and it has been submitted that on 17.1.2015 when an under trial prisoner Rajesh @ Tota was taken in ambulance along with task force from Mathura to Agra for advance treatment at 11.30 p.m., ambulance was ambushed. 5-6 young persons armed with illicit weapons had opened fire and murdered Rajesh @ Tota, thus, submission of learned A.G.A. is that a critically injured under trial prisoner was murdered in police security by the applicant and his associates. Applicant has long criminal history of 140 cases. He does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. Truth of the matter is that except confessional statement no evidence could be collected against the present applicant neither he was identified by members of the police party as assailant nor anything incriminating could be recovered on his pointing out or from his possession. Since this is a case of no evidence, previous criminal history is of no significance, however, from the perusal of the aforesaid paras it transpires that most of the cases registered against the present applicant relate to theft. Since this is a case of no evidence, previous criminal history is of no significance, however, from the perusal of the aforesaid paras it transpires that most of the cases registered against the present applicant relate to theft. At present only four matters are pending against him at Delhi and he is on bail in all of them, hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. 6. Let applicant, Nadeem Qureshi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (i). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, if 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; (ii). The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (iii). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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., 1973 If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.