Dismissed

Tazeem Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2022BAIL/5141/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected a bail application filed by an accused charged with murder and unlawful assembly. The applicant failed to show sufficient grounds, and bail was denied at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected

What the court decided

Tazeem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Reserved on :- 29.08.2022 Delivered on :- 05.09.2022 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5141 of 2022

¶2

Applicant :- Tazeem Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nasira Adil,Fakharul Islam Jafri,Sr. Advocate

¶3

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Ram Awadh Mishra,Siddhartha Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nasira Adil, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Tazeem Ahmad, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 386 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 394, 364, 411, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Sarai Akil, DistrictKaushambi, during pendency of trial.

¶7

There is allegation of rioting, attempt to murder and also causing injuries to the injured against the applicant, being member of unlawful assembly and committing the alleged offences in furtherance of common object. The applicant along with 5 named co-accused persons are alleged to have attacked the injured by sharp-edged weapons as a result of which he suffered head injuries and after he tried to escape, all the accused persons fired at him with intention of murder and he fell down. After hearing the sound of firing, the villagers came and thereafter, the accused persons, considering the injured to be dead, left him and ran away. The injured was brought to the police station from where he was taken to the District Hospital.

¶8

¶9

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the informant of this case is Mohd. Quresh. His brother-in-law, namely, Khaleel Ahmad along with Jubair Ahmad came to his house and thereafter, went to the field for irrigating the same. The moment all of them left their house, they were attacked by the applicant and co-accused persons. Khaleel Ahmad was attacked on the head and thereafter, on account of serious injuries, he fell down and was taken by the villagers to the police station and then to the district hospital. The injured, Khaleel Ahmad, brother-in-law of the informant died as a result of firearm injury and postmortem report confirmed the same. He has submitted that in the first information report, the factum of causing injury of deceased, Khaleel Ahmad, has not been mentioned. There is discrepancy in the place of occurrence since as per the first information report, the same took place just infront of the house of the informant while in the site plan, prepared by the Investigating Officer, the same took place in the baagh (groove). He has submitted that co-accused, Jubair Ahmad, is alleged to have fired upon the deceased, Khaleel Ahmad, after snatching the gun from Javed Ahmed whose statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. He is languishing in jail since 19.10.2021.

¶10

Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application of the applicant. He has submitted that all the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and have caused the alleged offence in furtherance of common object. He has submitted that the first information report was lodged by the injured who is a rustic and he has not clearly understood the difference between the injured and informant of the first information report. Even otherwise the first information report cannot be considered to be encyclopaedia. The applicant has criminal history. He is involved in heinous offence of murder and the injured witnesses are also there

¶11

¶12

who have given their statements proving implication of the applicant. There is also eye-witness account of the incident.

¶13

After hearing rival contentions, this Court finds that eight injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. Informant has lodged separate FIR regarding offence committed against him by the accused persons.

¶14

The Apex Court in the case of Manno Lal Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2022 (119) ACC 251 and Kumer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2021 (117) ACC 609, has held that where the accused is charged for committing offence punishable under Section 149 I.P.C., his presence stands established in unlawful assembly. Overt act or individual role by an accused is not significant and relevant.

¶15

The applicant has not made out any good ground for grant of bail. The bail application of the applicant is accordingly rejected at this stage.

¶16

The trial court is expected to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within period of 2 years.

¶17

Order Date :- 05.09.2022 Rohit

¶18

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.09.06 11:08:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tazeem Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Tazeem Ahmad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premdas Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Hoti Vs State of U.P.

Hari Shanker and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Sharma @ Bholu Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Mahfooj Alam Vs State of U.P.