Dismissed

Wasim v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2021CRLA/2337/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal seeking quashing of a bail rejection order. Upholding the lower court view that the appellant made insufficient case for bail, considering the gravity of the murder charge and corroborative evidence.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal challenging the bail rejection order stands dismissed. The order dated 25.6.2020 passed by the Special Judge is confirmed.

Wasim Vs State of U.P. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2337 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Wasim Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Shivam Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri A.Z. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶6

Office report dated 2.8.2021 clearly indicates that notice upon opposite party no.2 has been served personally but one has appeared to represent him.

¶7

There is exchange of pleadings between the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the appellant and the matter is ripe for final submission.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for quashing the bail rejection order dated 25.6.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saharanpur in Bail Application No.1801 of 2020 (Wasim vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No.142 of 2020, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 and 3(2)5K of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Chilkana, District-Saharanpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of the Court to the F.I.R. lodged by Bachan Singh against the appellant and one Munesh w/o late Mangeram on 20.3.2020 at 14.10 hours for the incident said to have taken place in the dead hours of night of 19/20.3.2020, with the allegation that the informant's son Mangeram married to one Munesh, the coaccused in this case. The appellant has developed certain amount of extra-marital relationship with the wife of the deceased Mangeram and this fact was revealed to her husband, who severely objected to such type of relationship. Thereafter, Munesh and her paramour Wasim have decided to wipe the deceased off and they have committed this offence.

¶10

There is specific allegation that Munesh and Wasim both have strangulated the neck of the deceased and killed him. There is eye-witness account of informant's grand-son Lakshya, who in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 21.3.2021, has clearly stated that in the dead hours of the night he has seen a person along with her mother strangulating his father. Besides this,

¶11

police during investigation has also recorded the statement of Aryan s/o deceased, in which he has disclosed that a mobile was given by the appellant to his mother and when his father came to know about this, he destroyed the SIM of that mobile. The appellant Wasim was a frequent visitors of his house in absence of his father. Call details report also indicates the presence of appellant at the relevant point of time in the place of occurrence.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Lakshya and Aryan do not clearly indicate the complicity of appellant in the crime, moreover, co-accused Ram Kumar was admitted on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.9.2020 in Crl Misc. Bail Application No.25799 of 2020.

¶13

I have perused the bail order passed in favour of co-accused Ram Kumar, in which the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relying upon the statement of Lakshya s/o the deceased, has released him on bail on the ground that he was not even named in the F.I.R. and Lakshya in his statement indicated the complicity of the appellant.

¶14

Taking into account the entire gamut of circumstances, the statement of the son of the deceased, extra-marital relationship of applicant with the co-accused Munesh, nature of offence, its gravity and evidence in support of it, the appellant has not made out a case for bail.

¶15

I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 25.6.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saharanpur in Bail Application No.1801 of 2020 (Wasim vs. State of U.P) and the same is hereby confirmed. The appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 1.10.2021 M. Kumar

¶17

Digitally signed by RAHUL CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.10.02 12:16:04 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Wasim v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wasim v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajat Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yunus and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Shalini Sahai Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ambika Sahani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and Another