Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32117 of 2017 Applicant :- Rahul @ Rahil Saifi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nazrul Islam Jafri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Singh
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Nazrul Islam Jafri, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant and Sri Saqib Meezan, learned counsel for the State.
This is an application for bail filed on behalf of Rahul @ Rahil Saifi in Case Crime No.154 of 2017, under Section 302, 201 I.P.C, P.S. Sardhana, District- Meerut.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the deceased, Anuj had left his house on 02.03.2017 in order to attend Jagran at the house of one Rohtash and on way, he met his uncle, Rishipal (the informant's brother) at 08:30 PM; that Rishipal last mentioned had informed the first informant that the deceased told him that he was proceeding to the house of one Aas Mohammad for what he called "accounting purpose" which may be understood to be settlement of some monetary transactions; that on the following morning at about 09:00 AM, the dead body of Anuj stowed away in a bag was found behind Dabbu Thala Inter College along the Bahadurpur road; that the first information report was lodged on a conjecture of the father Narendra Singh, the first informant that his son was suspectedly done to death by Aas Mohammad as he had last revealed that he was proceeding to Aas Mohammad's house to settle some accounts.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is a case that rests entirely on circumstantial evidence; that the FIR carries an apprehension about Aas Mohammad's involvement and on that the police has spun a fabricated story of disconnect circumstance with no firm evidence that may prima facie show a complete chain against the applicant being made out.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the circumstances sought to be put together against the applicant are to the effect that on 30.3.2017, a forensic team has taken blood stains from the joint house of the applicant and the other co-accused but till date no report of the chemical examiner is available, a fact acknowledged in para 13 of the counter affidavit; that on 6.3.2017, the applicant along with co-accused, Aas Mohammad, Ali Mohammad and Umar Mohammad were arrested by the police showing recovery of a car i.e. Wagon-R bearing no. UP 14 BF 9873; that recovery of a Samsung make mobile phone is also shown from the possession of the applicant; that on 6.3.2017, on the pointing of the applicant, a wrench (spanner) is shown from his house but the wrench (spanner) is not connected to the commission of the crime as the post mortem report shows five incised wounds, two abrasions and one ligature mark, none of which can be said to be caused by the allegedly recovered wrench (spanner) as it is not a sharp edged weapon; that the recovered Wagon-R was neither used in the commission of the crime or does it find mention in the FIR and the statement of any prosecution witnesses examined by the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. earliest in point of time after the occurrence; that the story of use of the Wagon-R car has been introduced subsequently through the statement of one Sachin who was examined by the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 24.3.2017, that is to say, after 18 days of the arrest of the accused, including the applicant that there is neither evidence of last seen against the applicant or the other co-accused or any such evidence has been collected by the police to connect the applicant to the alleged crime; that the applicant had no motive at all either to commit murder or to hatch a criminal conspiracy for the purpose; that co-accused, Umar Mohammad who was arrested by the police along with the applicant, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.8.2017; that the said order was challenged by the complainant, Narendra Singh before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of filing Special Leave Petition (Cr.) No. 7878 of 2017 and the same has come to be dismissed on 15.2.2018; that three witnesses of fact have so far been examined, to wit, Narendra Singh (the first informant) PW-1, Rishipal Singh PW-2, Vineet Dhama PW-3, that there are six witnesses of fact, of whom three remain to be examined besides another 20 formal witnesses making that a figure of 23 in consequence of which there can be no end to the trial expected in the near future; and, that the applicant is languishing in jail since 6.3.2017 as an undertrial.
Sri Jitendra Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant as well as Sri Saqib Meezan, learned A.G.A. for the State have in one voice opposed the prayer for bail and pointed out that the applicant has been arrested on 6.3.2017 along with co-accused Aas Mohammad and Ali Mohammad by the police riding a white Wagon-R bearing no. UP 14 BF 9873; that on a search of the co-accused Ali Mohammad son of Aas Mohammad, one mobile phone which said to belong to deceased Anuj, one PAN card and one ATM card all belonging to the deceased were recovered whereas on a search of Aas Mohammad recovery of credit card of ICICI Bank as shown in the recovery memo but with no mention of its connection to Anuj and from the applicant Rahul @ Rahil Saifi on a search, one mobile of Samsung make in working condition was recovered which was claimed by the applicant to be his own whereas from the right pocket another mobile of LYF make was recovered that was switched off and on switching it on, was found to be shielded by a pattern lock which none of the accused knew how to open and all the co-accused including the applicant are said to have admitted in the recovery memo that the mobile said to belongs to the deceased, Anuj; that in this connection, the Court has been taken through the recovery-cum-arrest memo, 'Annexure-9 to the bail application'; and, that in addition, it is pointed out that there is recovery of wrench (spanner) used in the occurrence at the pointing out of the applicant which is said to be one of the weapons used in the fatal assault.
The learned counsel for the complainant and the learned AGA have further submitted that there are call detail records dated 9.3.2017 which reveal conversation between the deceased and each of the four co-accused; that it is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant and the State that Aas Mohammad owed money to the deceased which has served as motive for the crime whereas the three other co-accused, that includes the applicant, are sons of Aas Mohammad who have participated in the crime on account of their affinity by blood; and, that the applicant is not entitled to claim parity with co- accused Umar Mohammad who has been admitted to bail vide order dated 19.8.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19194 of 2017, inasmuch as, there was no recovery or incriminating CDR details, available against him.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the fact that all the four co-accused are related by blood; that the three co- accused including the applicant were arrested while travelling in a car and from one of the co-accused, Ali Mohammad son of Aas Mohammad, there is the recovery of a mobile phone, PAN card and ATM card of the deceased, Anuj whereas from the applicant, there is recovery of a mobile phone shown in the recovery memo to be acknowledged by all the three co-accused travelling in the car to be owned by the deceased Anuj; and, that under such circumstances but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage.
It is made clear that anything said in this order will not influence the trial court in reaching its conclusions on the basis of the evidence led before it which shall be evaluated independently uninfluenced by this order.
Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected at this stage.
Considering the fact that three witnesses of fact have been examined and the applicant is in jail for a period of more than a year as an undertrial and three witnesses of fact and twenty formal witnesses remain to be examined, it is directed that the trial court shall now proceed and conclude the trial within a period of six months next in accordance with law.
It is further directed in case the witnesses do not appear on the first summons, immediate coercive processes shall be initiated to ensure their attendance and once a witness appears he/she will not discharged till his/her evidence is concluded.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Siddhant Sahu