Dismissed

Naseem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2023BAIL/11389/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the applicant, husband of the deceased, is not entitled to bail in a murder case where the body was recovered from his field, despite the timeline discrepancy between missing report, recovery, and FIR lodgement. The court noted the recovery was witnessed and the applicant's conduct of not reporting the missing person weighed against him.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant not entitled to release on bail.

Naseem Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:138520

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11389 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Naseem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ghan Shyam Das,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh,Umair Mahmood

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ghan Shyam Das, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Dr.S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.124 of 2022, under Sections 302/201 and 34 IPC, Police Station Heempur Deepa, District Bijnor during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and two others and some unknown persons under Sections 302 and 201 IPC on 1.6.2022 at about 23.38 hours and according to the FIR, informant lodged a missing report on 31.5.2022 at about 18.37 hours with regard to his younger sister China and on 1.6.2022 at about 8.30 PM in the evening the dead body of his sister was recovered at the pointing out of applicant (husband of the deceased) from a sugarcane field after digging the earth. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant, i.e., husband of the deceased, his brother and his first wife along

¶9

with their unknown associates after committing the murder of his sister buried her dead body.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of totally false recovery, applicant, who is the husband of the deceased, was made accused in the present matter by the informant. He further submitted that admittedly FIR of the present case was lodged on 1.6.2022 at about 23.38 hours and recovery of the dead body was alleged to have been made on the pointing out of applicant on 1.6.2022 at about 8.30 PM in the evening, i.e., well before lodgement of the FIR of the present matter, therefore, this fact clearly shows that after recovery of dead body, applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶11

He further submits that at the time of alleged recovery , i.e., on 1.6.2022 at about 20.30 hours applicant was not even made accused in the present matter as no FIR till that time could be lodged, therefore, alleged recovery of the dead body said to have been made on the pointing out of applicant from the sugarcane field is not admissible.

¶12

He further submits that from the perusal of the arrest memo of the applicant which has been annexed as Annexure-19 to the affidavit, it appears that applicant was arrested on 11.6.2022 at about 20.00 hours but in spite of that in the arrest memo case crime number of the present case has been mentioned as 124 of 2022, i.e., case crime number of the present case and this fact clearly suggests that on the basis of false recovery applicant has been made accused in the present matter as till the arrest of applicant, FIR of the present case was not in existence.

¶13

He further submits, it appears that the dead body of the

¶14

deceased was recovered from some other place and subsequently it was shown to be recovered on the pointing out of the applicant from his sugarcane field.

¶15

He further submits that except the recovery of the dead body on the pointing out of applicant and the fact that applicant is the husband of the deceased, there is no other evidence against the applicant is on record.

¶16

He further submits that as wife of applicant, i.e., deceased had gone according to her own wish from her matrimonial home due to some dispute, therefore, applicant did not make any complaint in this regard to the Police, however, he informed this fact to his sister and thereafter his sister lodged the missing report after receiving information from applicant.

¶17

He further submits that applicant in jail since 2.6.2022, i.e., for almost a year in the present case. He further urged, he is having criminal history of one case which he explained in paragraph-33 to the affidavit and in that case applicant has already been acquitted by the trial court.

¶18

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is the husband of deceased and in spite of the fact that she was missed from his home, i.e., her matrimonial home he did not even make any complaint and this fact shows the conduct of applicant.

¶19

They further submitted that on the pointing of applicant, dead body of the deceased was recovered from his sugarcane field which was buried after digging the earth. They further submitted that recovery was made in the presence of Tehsildar and independent witnesses. They further submitted that if due to

¶20

mistake of Investigating Officer in the recovery memo case crime number has been mentioned then no benefit should be extended in favour of the applicant.

¶21

Learned AGA further pointed out that although applicant has explained the criminal history of single case in the instant bail application but as per his instructions applicant is having criminal history of as many as 6 cases.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶23

Applicant is the husband of the deceased and from the record although it reflects that before lodgement of the FIR, applicant was arrested and on his pointing out dead body of the deceased was recovered after digging earth from his sugarcane field but from the record it reflects that dead body was recovered in presence of Tehsildar and independent witnesses. Further, entire recovery was vidographed.

¶24

Further, dead body of the deceased was recovered on 1.6.2022 and deceased was missed about a week before from her matrimonial home but in spite of that applicant did not even inform the Police.

¶25

As far as admissibility of the evidence with regard to the recovery of the dead body of the deceased is concerned at this stage no finding in this regard can be recorded by this Court.

¶26

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶27

Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.

¶28

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited

¶29

to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶30

Order Date :- 13.7.2023/SKM

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naseem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naseem 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akash Vs State of U.P.

Phool Miyan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajindra Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramnayan Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jepi Alias Rajit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others