This is a bail application under CrPC in a murder case. The applicant pleaded innocence, questioning the FIR and suggesting false implication. The learned AGA opposed bail citing a prima facie case. The court found that bail application has not been made out and reserved it.
None. Bail application was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34199 of 2021
Applicant :- Rizwan @ Bablu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Faheem Ahmad,Zafar Abbas
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Case is taken up through video conferencing.
Present bail application has been filed by the applicant Rizwan @ Bablu with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in case crime no. 29 of 2021, under Sections 302, 504, 34, 120-B IPC, P.S. Mehnagar, District Azamgarh.
Heard Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Zafar Abbas , learned counsel for informant as well as the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. No prima facie case is made out against the applicant. Though applicant is named in the F.I.R. yet F.I.R. is ante timed document. Nothing has been mentioned in the F.I.R. about the presence of female witnesses i.e. Smt. Shamima Khatoon and Smt. Hina at the place of occurrence. This fact itself shows that F.I.R. was lodged after due consultation. It is further submitted that it appears improbable and unbelievable that firing was opened but other persons present in the vehicle concerned did not receive injury. This fact also shows that F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of false facts. Deceased was a hardened criminal. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the applicant referred to case diary annexed with the bail application and submitted that a number of criminal cases of murder and attempt to murder were pending against the deceased. In fact incident took place in other manner. Since there was enmity between the applicant and the deceased family, due to this reason applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that since applicant belongs to the family of winning Pradhan of the village concerned, there was no occasion to commit the present offence by him, and, rather, there is every chance of false implication of the applicant due to this reason. Applicant is aged about 50 years. Nothing has been recovered from his possession. Recovery said to have been made from the co-accused is also false and planted. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant referred to paragraph nos. 10 and 16 of the bail application and further submitted that
applicant has no criminal history. He has been implicated in this case due to political rivalry. Learned counsel for the applicant also referred to statement of independent witness recorded by the Investigating Officer concerned and further submitted that statement of this witness itself reveals that incident took place in other manner. None has witnessed the incident. Medical evidence does not support the oral version. General role has been assigned against the accused persons. He is languishing in jail since 19.2.2021 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
On the other hand, learned counsel for informant as well as the learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is named in the F.I.R.. Specific role for opening fire upon the deceased is assigned to him. Though name of some prosecution witnesses have not been disclosed in the F.I.R. yet in the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC informant has disclosed this fact. Enmity is double edged weapon and due to this reason present offence has been committed by the applicant and other co-accused. Medical evidence fully supports the oral version. A prima facie case is made out.
In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there was no occasion to commit the present offence on the part of the applicant. Prosecution has developed its case during investigation. Again, learned counsel for the applicant referred to statement of independent witness Imran Ahmad and further submitted that statement of this witness itself belies the statement of family members of the deceased said to be present at the place of occurrence.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, complicity of accused, scrutinizing the facts mentioned in the F.I.R., statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. The bail application is liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected .
Order Date :- 3.2.2022
safi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements of law for bail grant in a case involving commission of murder.
Whether the facts and circumstances mentioned by the applicant justify his release on bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rizwan @ Bablu
State of U.P.
Om Prakash-VII,J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
