Dismissed

Fariyad Tyagi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2023BAIL/42964/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge rejected a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC for an accused charged with murder,abetment and criminal intimidation. The court noted eye-witness testimony, motive regarding a dispute over irrigation, recovery of a weapon, and fatal injuries, distinguishing the case from a co-accused who was granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195443

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42964 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Fariyad Tyagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajan Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ranjan Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Fariyad Tyagi seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case No. 82 of 2023, under Sections 302, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Niwadi, Gramin, Police Commissionerate Ghaziabad.

¶9

The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 21.5.2023 by Bilal against Fariyad Tyagi (the applicant), Arman, Suhail and Navi Karim with the allegation that on 21.5.2023 at about 01:00 p.m. his father Salauddin had gone to irrigate the fields where due to dispute with regards to cutting of drain there were some hot conversations with Fariyad after which Fariyad, Arman, Suhail and Nabi Karim started abusing his father and assaulted him with lathi, danda and fawra due to which he became unconscious and was in critical condition. On coming to know of it he went to the fields where all four accused persons abused him and threatened him of life and ran away. He took his father in an injured condition for treatment to Meerut where he was being treated. His condition is precarious. The F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 323, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the Investigating Officer found involvement of Sohail to be false and thus exonerated him. It is argued that there is no eye witness to the incident. It is further argued that common and general role has been assigned to all four accused persons in the F.I.R. It is argued that there are contradictions in the statements of the first informant and the other witnesses in so far as the incident is concerned. It is argued that co-accused Navi Karim@Shekeeb Tyagi has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.9.2023 passed in

¶11

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39379 of 2023, copy of the said order is annexure no. 8 to the affidavit in support of this bail application. It is further argued that co-accused Arman has confessed before the Police about his participation and involvement in the incident and has stated of assault by him upon the deceased with a bamboo danda repeatedly due to which he received injuries and he died during treatment. It is argued that looking the confessional statement of co-accused Arman to the police, the applicant is falsely implicated in the present case without any role whatsoever. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-18 of the affidavit and is in jail since 26.5.2023.

¶12

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in the present matter Naim and Masoom Ali are eye witnesses whose name finds place at serial nos. 3 and 4 in the list of witnesses in the charge sheet. Their statements are annexure no. 5 to the affidavit in support of bail application wherein they have assigned the role to the applicant of being armed with fawra and assaulting the deceased repeatedly with it after which he fell down. It is argued that post mortem examination report of the deceased corroborates with the prosecution story inasmuch as the doctor found a craniotomystitched wound with 40 stitches over left ear, a stitched wound with 12 stitches over top of head and a stitched wound with 14 stitches above from right ear. The doctor found left perietal bone fractured and cause of death as opined is cranio-cerebral damage as a result of ante mortem head injury due to alleged case of physical assault. It is argued that the applicant has a motive to commit the aforesaid offence since he had quarrel with the deceased with regards to cutting of drain for irrigation after which the incident occurred. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and two other co-accused persons. It is further argued that even in the order of co-accused Navi Karim @Shekeeb Tyagi the argument was that the dispute took place with the co-accused Fariyad (the applicant). It is argued that the applicant cannot be extended the benefit of the order of said co-accused since he has motive to commit the aforesaid offence.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there are allegations against him. There are two eye witnesses of the incident namely Naim and Masoom Ali who have stated of the applicant being armed with fawra and assaulting the deceased with it. Cause of death corresponds with the prosecution story. Fawra has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Navi Karim @ Shekeeb Tyagi who has been granted bail since specific motive is assigned to the

¶14

applicant.

¶15

Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

¶17

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 10.10.2023 Naresh

¶19

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

Fariyad Tyagi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fariyad Tyagi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nageena Vs State of U.P.

Alok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikesh @ Vikas Vs State of U.P.

Bhanu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Chandra Patel and Another Vs State of U.P.

Chaman Vs State of U.P.