Allowed

Naushad Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Allahabad HC29 May 2024/250/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for murder under Sections 302, 120-B, IPC, the High Court allowed bail despite prima facie suspicion regarding delayed FIR and conflicting inquest statements. The court distinguished a Supreme Court precedent on FIR delay as irrelevant here and granted bail on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to standard conditions.

Naushad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40877

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 250 of 2024 Applicant :- Naushad Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Srivastava,Syed Ahmad Mehdi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Pandey,Shashank Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Syed Ahmad Mehdi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vinod Kumar Sahi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and Sri Alok Pandey, the learned counsel for the informant.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.209 of 2023, under Sections 302, 120-B, 201 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Tarun, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 11.08.2023 at 22.20 hrs. against the applicant and one Zuber Khan alleging that a civil suit was going on between the father of the informant Sri Ram Tirath Tiwari and the applicant Naushad Khan which had been decreed in favour of the informant's father. The applicant has filed an appeal against the decree. Having no hope of success in the appeal, the applicant entered into a conspiracy with the co-accused Zuber Khan for killing the informant's father and when the informant's father was going to a barber's shop at about 9.00 a.m. on 11.08.2023, Zuber Ahmad hit him with a four wheeler vehicle, due to which he got injured and fell down. The incident was witnessed by the informant's mother (the deceased's wife) and one Surendra Tiwari as well as several other persons present nearby. The applicant went away speedily with the vehicle while saying that it appeared that the informant's father got saved and he will kill him some other day. The informant's father had suffered serious injuries on various parts of his body and his left leg got fractured. He was taken to the district hospital where he died during treatment at 3.18 p.m. on 11.08.2023.

¶8

The postmortem examination report mentions numerous injuries of contusions, abrasions and traumatic swelling on the entire body of the deceased and the cause of death has been opined to be shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries.

¶9

A copy of the inquest report has been annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the application for bail as also with the counter affidavit filed by the State. The inquest proceedings were witnessed by the informant Ravi Shankar Tiwari, Surendra Tiwari (who is mentioned in the F.I.R. as an eye witness of the incident), Janardan Dubey, Praveen Dubey and Krishna Kant and all of them stated that the informant's father died due to injuries suffered in a road accident. The inquest report mentions that the information of the incident was given to the police at 16.59 hrs. on 11.08.2023 by a Ward Boy.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. In para 17 of the affidavit the applicant's involvement in eight other cases has been shown in three of which he has been acquitted and in rest of the cases he has been released on bail.

¶11

In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the informant reiterated the F.I.R. version and stated that the incident was witnessed by his mother Urmila Devi and one Surendra Tiwari besides some other persons. The witness Surendra Tiwari stated that the deceased was his uncle. At the time of the incident he and the deceased's wife were standing at the gate of the house and the deceased had gone to a short distance from the house when the co-accused hit him while driving the vehicle at a fast speed on the wrong side of the road. The witness Surendra Tiwari and the deceased's wife and several other persons ran to save him but the co-accused went away with the vehicle while saying that perhaps the informant's father got saved but he will not be safe next time.

¶12

The State of U.P. and the informant have filed counter affidavits opposing the bail application, annexing therewith copies of documents related to civil litigation between the parties. The applicant has filed a rejoinder affidavit to both the counter affidavits filed by the informant.

¶13

Sri Alok Pandey, the learned counsel for the informant has relied upon the following passage of para 14a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar and Another Vs. State of Punjab; 2001 7 SCC 690, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-

¶14

"When there is criticism on the ground that FIR in a case was delayed the court has to look at the reason why there was such a delay. There can be a variety of genuine causes for FIR lodgment to get delayed. Rural people might be ignorant of the need for informing the police of a crime without any lapse of

¶15

time. This kind of unconversantness is not too uncommon among urban people also. They might not immediately think of going to the police station. Another possibility is due to lack of adequate transport facilities for the informers to reach the police station. The third, which is a quite common bearing, is that the kith and kin of the deceased might take some appreciable time to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind or sedativeness of temper for moving to the police station for the purpose of furnishing the requisite information. Yet another cause is, the persons who are supposed to give such information themselves could be so physically impaired that the police had to reach them on getting some nebulous information about the incident."

¶16

The aforesaid judgment was given in an appeal filed against an appellate judgment passed by the High Court affirming an order of conviction and the question of grant of bail and the affect of delay in lodging the F.I.R while considering the bail application of the accused persons, was neither involved nor decided in the case of Ravinder Kumar (supra), therefore, the judgment in the case of Ravinder Kumar is not relevant for deciding the bail application of the applicant.

¶17

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that coaccused zuber Khan, has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 22.05.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2829 of 2024. Other co-accused persons namely, Anil Kumar Verma, Siraj Ahmad and Durgesh Yadav, have also been granted bail by means of orders dated 02.04.2024, 04.12.2023 and 18.04.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.13492 of 2023, 14201 of 2023 and 13201 of 2023 respectively.

¶18

It appears from the material placed before the court at this stage that the incident occurred at 9.00 a.m. on 11.08.2023. As per the F.I.R. version, the incident was witnessed by the mother of the informant, who is the deceased's widow, and Surendra Tiwari, who is the deceased's nephew besides several other villagers. It is also alleged that the applicant had stated immediately after the incident that it appears that the victim got saved and he will be killed in future. The deceased was taken to the district hospital where he died during treatment at 3.18 p.m. on the same day. The information of the death of the informant's father was given to the police by a Ward Boy at 16.59 hrs. The inquest started at 17.35 hrs. on 11.08.2023. The inquest proceedings were witnessed by five persons including the informant Ravi Shankar Tiwari and one of the alleged eye witnesses of the incident Surendra Tiwari. All the witnesses stated that the deceased died due to injuries suffered in a road

¶19

accident and all of them signed the inquest report. The F.I.R. was lodged at 22.20 hrs. on 11.08.2023 i.e. after more than 13 hours since occurrence and after about five hours since the death of the informant's father. A property dispute is going on between the informant's family and the co-accused Naushad Ali. The property dispute between the parties can be a motive for commission of incident but it can also be a motive for false implication of the opponent.

¶20

The fact that the deceased's wife and informant had themselves witnessed the incident and yet they chose not to lodge the F.I.R. promptly, even after death of the deceased the intimation of his death was given to the police by a Ward Boy and not by any member of his family and no person including the informant and the so called eye witness Surendra Tiwari stated during inquest proceedings that the deceased had been killed and all of them stated that the deceased died in a road accident and it was only after about five hours that the F.I.R. was lodged stating that the deceased had been deliberately killed by hitting him by a vehicle create a prima facie suspicion against the prosecution story.

¶21

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and without making any further observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶22

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶23

Let the applicant- Naushad Khan be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶24

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶25

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶26

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶27

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶28

Order Date :- 29.5.2024 Preeti.

¶29

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Naushad Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naushad Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Maa Kamakhya Traders Ropahihut,Nagawn,Asam,Delhi Thru. Prop. Vinod Maurya Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Minister of Finance,New Delhi and 3 Others

Neelam Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Mohan Kumar Vs Govt. of India Thru. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement

Brajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Abhishek Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and Another

Sarva Shree Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Haridwar Uttarakhand Vs Addl.Commissioner GRADE-2APPEALCOMMERCIAL Tax Sitapur andANR