Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37984 of 2018 Applicant :- Javed Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Javed Ahmad in Case Crime No.68 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B/34 I.P.C. and 4/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Chiraiyakot, District-Mau with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that on 6.5.2018, dead body of an unknown man was lying in a field whose information was given to the police on mobile phone. On 7.5.2018, the mother of the deceased gave a missing report on Police Station Adampur, District Varanasi that her son is missing since 5.5.2018. The mother of the deceased identified the dead body on 10.5.2018. Thereafter last rites were done. It is submitted that on 18.5.2018, an application was moved by the cousin brother of the deceased, namely, Neyaz Ahmad before Police Station Chiraiyakot, District Mau that Mohd. Mursalim,the deceased in connection with some money transaction was taken by the applicant and one another accused, Goldy alias Shahid Asraf. Statement of Mohd. Neyaz under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter, the applicant and co-accused Danish alias Sazid Asraf Mirza were arrested on 22.05.2018 and on their pointing out a knife was recovered from a canal which allegedly contained blood-stains. Learned counsel states that recovery of knife after about 18 days of the incident on the joint pointing out of the applicant and co-accused from canal is not credible. However, besides evidence of last seen which was introduced after 13 days of the incident, there is no other reliable evidence to connect the applicant with the present crime. There is no early prospect of conclusion of trial. So, the applicant, who is in jail since 23.05.2018, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail.
Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant-Javed Ahmad 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 subject to following conditions that:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the courts below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018/MN/-