Allowed

Rafiq Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2024/4306/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench allowed the bail application of Rafiq Ahmad, charged with murder and attempt to murder. The court distinguished the applicant's role with a lathi from the co-accused who wielded the axe.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties, with conditions to attend hearings and not tamper with evidence.

Rafiq Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. /… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31577

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4306 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rafiq Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Nadeem Murtaza, Aditya Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Supplementary Affidavit filed in court is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Ms. Ankita Yadav for the for the applicant, Sri Anuj Pandey who appears for the informant as well as learned AGA and perused the record.

¶8

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.91 of 2023 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Leelapur, District Pratapgarh.

¶9

While arguing the bail application, the counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on the basis of a dispute that occurred on account of public path on which, the accused named in the FIR were trying to block by throwing the soil on it, which was refused by the informant and the family members and on account of that dispute, the accused including the applicant armed with lathi, danda, Kulhari, Fawara allegedly came and caused injuries to the brother of the informant as well as to the informant and his brother in law.

¶10

In the light of the said allegations, the counsel for the applicant argues that general role was assigned of causing the injuries to all the accused. She draws my attention to the postmortem report on record which indicates the presence of one stitch wound on the forehead at the left ear, which was also the cause of death. She also draws my attention to the statement of the informant wherein, the role of carrying Fawara was assigned to one Nafees and as regards the applicant, he was assigned on carrying Lathi - Danda and causing injuries on the deceased with the use of Lathi - Danda. It is further argued that the co-accused Smt. Momina and Abu Talib were enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders which are on record as Annexure no.12.

¶11

In the light of the said, she argues that as the role of attacking with the use of axe (Kulhari) was assigned to the co-accused Nafees and Rafique, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. The criminal antecedents of the applicant are duly disclosed in para 33 of the bail application as well as in para 4 of the supplementary affidavit filed today and in all the cases the applicant is on bail and are of minor offences.

¶12

Learned AGA as well as the counsel for the informant strongly oppose the bail application by placing reliance on the statement of an eye witness who had

¶13

specifically stated that after the axe was struck on the body of the deceased, the applicant had caused the injuries by use of lathi, which aggravated the assault and ultimately which led to the death of the deceased. It is thus, argued that as the specific role was assigned to the applicant, he may not be enlarged on bail. It is further argued that lathi and danda was recovered at the instance and pointing out of the applicant, which is clear from the recovery memo, which is on record as Annexure no.10.

¶14

Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima-facie the allegation against the applicant was of use of lathi and danda for causing the injury and the role of axe which is primary cause of death and is corroborated to the injury inflicted on the deceased was assigned to Nafees and Rafique and there is no recovery of any axe from the applicant and even the recovery of lathi-danda, allegedly in terms of the recovery memo, is not in the presence of any independent witnesses and considering the fact that the entire dispute had occasioned on account of an altercation that took place with regard to a public way coupled with the infirmities as discussed above and the fact that the applicant has no substantial criminal history, he is entitled for the bail, as such, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Rafiq Ahmad be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶17

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

Order Date :- 23.4.2024 VNP/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rafiq Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafiq Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohit Trivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Badal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Pyare Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Dinesh Kumar Gupta @ D.K. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Suraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others