Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Firoz Ahmad vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|27 October, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38610 of 2018 Applicant :- Firoz Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Firoz Ahmad in connection with Case Crime No. 259 of 2018 under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Dudhara, District Sant Kabir Nagar.
Heard Sri C.P. Upadhayay, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vijay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the case rests on the circumstantial evidence. According to the FIR, the dead body of the deceased was discovered on 24.07.2018 within the Gram Panchayat Lohrauli in a field adjoining the M.S. Public School. It is alleged in the FIR by the father of the informant that he had come to know that his daughter had been murdered by the applicant, who is a brother of Sonu@ Naushad, with whom his daugther was in love. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is absolutely no basis to the aforesaid belief or assertion of the first informant. It is based on a wild conjecture. It is alleged that so far as the applicant is concerned, the only circumstance appearing against him is that of an extra judicial confession made by his brother to the police that the applicant confessed to his brother being averse to the proposed marriage between Sonu@Naushad, and, the deceased, that he did her to death. Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that the said confession has been recorded by the police falsely against the present applicant. Sonu @ Sonu Naushad, the brother of the applicant, has filed an affidavit in support of the present bail application, wherein it is averred in paragraph no. 13, that no statement of deponent was ever recorded by the Investigating Officer, and that the alleged statement shown by the Investigating Officer in the case diary is mere paper work done in order to frame the applicant in a blind case of murder about which the police are clueless. It is further argued that there are no other circumstances, appearing against the applicant, such as, recovery, last seen and the like.
Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer for bail, but does not dispute the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence where the only circumstance appearing prima facie against the applicant is an extra judicial confession.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, in particular, the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence with an extra judicial confession alone but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Firoz Ahmad involved in Case Crime No. 259 of 2018 under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Dudhara, District Sant Kabir Nagar be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 Deepak
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Firoz Ahmad vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
27 October, 2018
Judges
  • J J Munir
Advocates
  • Vijay Kumar Dubey