Nazim v. State of U.P.

Court No. - 45

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5882 of 2019

Applicant :- Nazim Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikrant Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated; that applicant is not named in FIR lodged on 7.5.2018 at 11.00 a.m. with the averments that Tanveer Ahmad, nephew of first informant Sageer Ahmad, was working as Accountant at Bhatta, Chand Brick Store of Abdul Rauf since last four years and used to reside at brick-kiln and had gone to attend marriage of son of Abkar Shah in the evening of 6.5.2018 and was called in brick-kiln for loading bricks at about 9.00 p.m. and at 10.30 p.m. on getting a phone call left from brickkiln and did not return, but his dead body was found in north of canal patri in village Tehri Khwaja; that the prosecution witnesses have stated that the deceased had come to attend marriage of applicant on 6.5.2018; that statements of prosecution witnesses Akbar Shah, son of Akhtar and Amir Hasan are self-contradictory and in contradiction to each other; that statements of Amir Hasan with whom deceased was last seen recorded on 8.5.2018, 2.6.2018 and 4.11.2018, at Annexure-7 contains improvements at every next time and similarly statements of Akbar Shah son of Akhtar dated 27.5.2018, 18.8.2018 and 22.10.2018, at Annexure-9 also contains improvements at every next time; that applicant neither had any quarrel with deceased nor had any occasion or motive to cause his death on the day of his wedding; that alleged extra judicial confession of father of applicant and village Pradhan before first informant on 25.10.2018 is absolutely false and not admissible in evidence; that in this case based on circumstantial evidence there is no incriminating evidence against the applicant; that weapon of crime has been recovered from co-accused, Nazish; that confessional statements of co-accused Danish and Nazish are not binding on applicant; that case of applicant is distinguishable from Nazish; that applicant has no