The Allahabad High Court, in Bail Application No. 28507 of 2022, rejected the bail plea of an accused implicated in a murder case under Section 302 IPC. The court found no grounds to grant bail despite arguments regarding innocent implicate, alibi, and dilution of role by the prosecution witness.
Bail application rejected; applicant not enlarged on bail.
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. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28507 of 2022
Applicant :- Meraj Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Akram,Amit Daga,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Dubey
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard Mr. Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Mr. Mohammad Akram, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State Mr. Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 94 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 427/34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Nawabganj, District Allahabad, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that after lodging of the first information report, the investigation was set in motion and during investigation on the basis of CCTv footage and CDR, the involvement of the applicant was not found in commission of the offence, therefore, his name was deleted. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.01.2022 passed in Sessions Trial No. 240 of 2018 on an application moved under section 319 Cr.P.C., the applicant has been summoned to face trial on the basis of statement of PW-1 Mohd. Rais, the informant. During his deposition before the Court, he diluted the role of the applicant as of catching hold and he has stated that he did not identify the accused since they had covered their faces. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR has been lodged on 14.03.2018 at 01.40 hours regarding the incident alleged to have been taken place on 13.03.2018 at 16.30 hours. It is next submitted that during the investigation, on the basis of additional statement given by informant and his wife, under section 161 Cr.P.C., the applicant was not charge sheeted. It is also submitted that the applicant has a criminal history of six cases, which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that CCTv footage and CDR also disclosed that the
applicant was not present at the spot at the time of alleged offence. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that co-accused Irshad, Mohd. Nooren, Ishtiyaq and Shahid have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 04.12.2018, 02.11.2018, 07.01.2019 and 06.09.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 44525 of 2018, 40767 of 2018, 385 of 2019, and 30904 of 2018 respectively. It is next contended that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.06.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned counsel for the informant as well as A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that CCTv footage does not help in any manner to the applicant since no time has been mentioned in the report of the Investigating Officer that at which time the applicant was present at the footwear shop. Likewise taken into consideration the fact that the incident happened at Nawabganj and as per the CDR, the location of the applicant was referred at Phaphamau, which is close to the Nawabganj. It is not conclusive proof of alibi as alleged by the applicant. It is also submitted that after the incident, the applicant threatened the informant and his family members, for which case was also registered against him. It is further submitted that the role of applicant Meraj Ahmad is similar to the co-accused Javed, whose bail application has already been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.09.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9412 of 2019. So far as the ground of granting bail to the co-accused Irshad, Mohd. Nooren, Ishtiyaq and Shahid is concerned, it is alleged that role of these coaccused is different and in their bail orders, the case of the present applicant is mentioned to be distinguishable. It is also submitted that the informant is regularly moving the application before the trial court for protection from accused persons. In view of regular threat given for not to depose before the Court, the Court had ordered the appropriate authority for proper action. It is further submitted that so far as the final report submitted in Case Crime No. 270 of 2022, under sections 354Kha and 504 IPC is concerned, final report has not been submitted against the applicant. The role of the applicant is such as main accused. The deceased received as many as eight injuries including four injuries of fire arm. The present applicant Meraj Ahmad has been assigned having rifle at the time of occurrence as per contents of the FIR. The criminal history of the applicant has not properly been explained by the learned counsel for the applicant.
In rebuttal of argument of learned counsel for the informant, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that so far as the case of threatening the applicant is concerned, final report has been submitted on 25.07.2022 since PW-1 Mohd. Rais himself diluted the role of the applicant. So far as the absconding of the applicant is concerned, it is alleged that the applicant Meraj Ahmad and co-accused Mohd. Zaid have approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 640 of 2022 for setting aside the judgment and order dated 31.01.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, court No. 3, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 240 of 2018 (State vs. Nurain and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 94 of 2018, under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 427/34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, in which co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.05.2022 granted interim protection to the applicant for a period of two weeks for surrendering and applying for bail. Thereafter the applicant surrendered before the court concerned.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, gravity of offence, severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to grant bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 13.1.2023 Sazia
Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving murder and affray under Sections 302 and 147 IPC.
Whether the allegations of dilution of role by the informant and CCTV evidence establish grounds for release on bail.
Meraj Ahmad
Mayank Kumar Jain
Sazia Aquil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
