Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13374 of 2016 Applicant :- Arzad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shantanu Srivastava,Gaurav Kakkar,Saurabh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh,Nazrul Islam Jafri
Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.
Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar for the applicant , A.G.A. for State of UP and Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant Arzad is in jail since 23.7.2015 in Case Crime No. 261 of 2015, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504/34 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Keeratpur, Distt. Bijnor.
The incident is alleged to have been taken place on 18.7.2015 at 11 AM and FIR of the incident was lodged on 18.7.2015 at 1.30 PM by Smt. Meena wife of the deceased Akhlaq and mother of injured Waseem. In the FIR, it has been stated that the deceased Akhlaq used to do property business along with Rizwan son of Chhuttan and Mahfuj son of Babu; there was dues of her husband of an amount of Rs. 10 lakh against the aforesaid person for which her husband was asking for accounting to them; on 18.7.2015, persons from her mother side as well as some other persons from paternal village have come on the occasion of Eid; at about 11 AM, Imran, Rizwan, Faizan sons of Chhuttan ,Chhuttan son of Munna and Mahfuj son of Babu and Arzad son of Rahamatullah came to her house; her husband had dues of Rs. 10 lakh against the aforesaid persons. As soon as they came , they asked her husband for accounting. Then her husband says that today is Eid and first we take "kheer" and meet along with relatives and family members after that we will settle accounting; on asking of her husband she served "kheer" to every one; later on the aforesaid persons begun to abuse her husband in the presence of her relatives, which was opposed by her husband , herself as well as family members. On which aforesaid persons have forcibly pulled her husband and son from her house and begun indiscriminate firing upon her husband as well as her son in which her husband as well as her son received severe injury; when her husband was taken to hospital then he was declared as dead; son of the first informant had also received fatal injury and taken for treatment to the hospital.
The counsel for the applicant submits that in the FIR, general role of indiscriminate firing has been assigned to all the six named accused. However Meena, the first informant in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr P C has stated that firing upon Akhlaq, the deceased was done by Arzad and Rizwan. The statement of Smt. Neeso, mother of the deceased Akhlaq was also recorded under Section 161 Cr P C in which she was also claiming herself to be eye witness of the incident and stated that firing was done by Faizan, Imran, Arzad and Rizwan upon her son as well as her grand son. Statement of injured Waseem was also recorded in which he has stated that Imran, Rizwan, Faizan and Arzad have made indiscriminate firing upon him as well as his father. In the postmortem report of the deceased only single injury on the body of Akhlaq was found and in the medical report of the injured Waseem, also only single injury was found. The main motive in the FIR as well as statement of first informant has been assigned to Chhuttan and his sons. So far as applicant Arzad is concerned, he had already filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, registered as Criminal Complaint No. 759 of 2014 as the cheque issued by Akhlaq to him of amount of Rs. 7 lakh could not be encashed. Thus the applicant Arzad has no motive to fire upon the deceased inasmuch as his money which was due to him, would not be recovered. General role of firing has been assigned either two or four or six persons in the statements of different witnesses. Thus it is not clear as to who was author of the injury of the deceased Akhalq. Admittedly, the statement of witnesses of fact has already been recorded before the trial court as such there is no chance to pressurize the witnesses. The applicant is in jail for about 2 years and 9 months and is entitled for grant of bail.
On the other hand, counsel for the complainant as well as AGA submitted that it was a day light murder in which role of firing has been assigned to all of them. The fact that the accused were doing property business along with Akhlaq, the deceased, has not been denied. Since there is no major male person in the family of the deceased Akhlaq and threatening are being given to the widow of the deceased not to give evidence in this case, as such in case the applicant is released on bail then life of first informant as well as her children will also in danger. Bail application of the other accused has also been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. All the accused came together with common object and done indiscriminate firing as such injury caused to Akhlaq is not specified; all of them being member of unlawful assembly would be liable for punishment.
Keeping in view of the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The bail application is rejected accordingly.
However, since the trial is pending for a long time as such the trial court is directed to expedite the trail and proceed in it without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 Rahul /-