Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 32 (ALL)

Firoz v. State of U. P.

2020-01-06

AJIT SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. List has been revised. None is present on behalf of informant to press this applicant, though learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. are present. 2. Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri G.S. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 3. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 187 of 2019, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., P.S. Mawana, district-Meerut, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. 4. The first information report was got lodged by the informant against unknown persons, mentioning therein that his nephew Sufiyan son of Mohatam Khan is a driver and he used to earn his livelihood by driving vehicle. On 13.4.2019 at about 7:30 p.m. he had gone to Mawana taking his Eco Maruti, bearing no. DL-80 CP 9505. The nephew of the informant has informed his partner Shakeez that five persons have booked the vehicle for going to Meerpur from Mawana. The Gram Pradhan had received an information from the police of Mawana Police Station that a man was lying dead at Nai Colony on Bhaisa road, who was murdered by slitting his neck with sharpedge weapon. Police investigated the matter and after completion of investigation submitted charged sheet against the present accused and other co-accused Nazakat Kuraishi. Police also recovered a knife at the instance of present accused. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was not named in the first information report. He further submitted that there is neither any direct nor any circumstantial evidence against the applicant. He next submitted that the name of the applicant as an accused surfaced for the first time in the extrajudicial confession made by one William Singh son of Katare before police, in which he had stated that this incident might have been committed by Firoz Khan along with his accomplice Nazakat. The recovery which has been shown from the applicant was planted one and there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. He also submitted that the police has not inquired about the telephone number as to with whom the conversation had been made and vehicle was booked and with whom the accused had gone after taking his vehicle. The recovery which has been shown from the applicant was planted one and there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. He also submitted that the police has not inquired about the telephone number as to with whom the conversation had been made and vehicle was booked and with whom the accused had gone after taking his vehicle. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 15.4.2019 and has no criminal antecedents to his credit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial. 6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but has not disputed the fact that the police has not inquired about the telephone numbers with whom the taxi of the deceased was booked and with whom the accused had gone after taking his taxi. 7. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. 8. Let the applicant, Firoz be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by him. (b) 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. 9. It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.