Allowed

Mohd. Sahbaj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2024/5043/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed the second bail application of an applicant charged with murder. Finding sufficient change in circumstances due to lack of prior history and distinguishing his role as a look-out from the main accused who committed the offence, the Court granted bail with specific conditions to prevent tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and complying with conditions regarding witness protection and non-interference.

Mohd. Sahbaj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66640

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5043 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Sahbaj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Mishra,Dharmendra Kumar Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gauri Shankar Maurya

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Gauri Shankar Maurya, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2/ informant/ complainant and perused the record.

¶8

This is the second bail application moved by the accused/applicant- Mohd. Sahbaj for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 223/2022, under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 450, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Lambhua, District- Sultanpur, during trial, as his first bail application was rejected as not pressed vide order dated 11.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.148 of 2023.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶10

It is further submitted that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by the informant- Rajesh Kumar Maurya, who is the brother of one of the deceased- Shakuntala Maurya alleging therein that he got an information that on 28.06.2022 at about 05.00 PM, some unknown persons have caused the death of his sister and his niece. During the course of investigation, the appellant and two other accused persons, namely, Irfan and Mohd. Shadan @ Nadan were shown to have been

¶11

arrested and also to have confessed their guilt while in the custody of police and on the pointing of one of the co-accused namely Irfan, the weapons (knife and iron rod) used in the commission of the offence have been recovered, which was also found blood stained, apart from the blood stained clothes which were worn by co-accused Irfan and Mohd. Shadan @ Nadan.

¶12

Highlighting the above, it is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that even if the confessional statements made by the applicant and co-accused persons are believed as it is and which could not be proved in the trial Court by virtue of bar contained under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, the role of only standing outside the house wherein the offence has been committed by the other two accused persons have been assigned to the applicant. He was admittedly not having any motive and there is no witness who has deposed during the course of investigation to have seen the applicant standing outside the house of the deceased persons.

¶13

It is further submitted that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that no weapon of assault has been recovered on the pointing or with the possession of the applicant. Thus, only suspicion and the confessional statements of the accused persons are available in support of the allegations, which may not be sufficient to secure the conviction of the applicant before the trial court.

¶14

It is next submitted that applicant is in jail in this case since 02.07.2022 and he is not having any criminal antecedents. The evidence of only three prosecution witnesses have been testified so far and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Gauri Shankar Maurya, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2/ informant/ complainant

¶16

vehemently opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the brutality with which the two ladies have been done to death by the applicant and his associates is itself sufficient to negate the prayer of bail of the applicant

¶17

It is further submitted that it is a case where the direct evidence may not be easily available as the offence has been committed with perfect design and the accused persons were frequent visitors to the house of the deceased person, therefore, nobody has suspected their visit.

¶18

It is also submitted by learned counsel for opposite party No.2/ informant/ complainant that after rejection of first bail application of the applicant, the husband of the deceased Ram Sukh was threatened by the mother of the applicant.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the applicant or the other two accused persons were not named in the F.I.R., which has been lodged by the brother of the deceased- Shakuntala Maurya. The two ladies found dead in the house have sustained various injuries of the nature of incised wounds on their vital parts and the injuries sustained by them were the cause of their death. The evidence which has been collected by the Investigating officer to connect the appellant before this Court with the Crime is consisting of his confessional statement and his arrest with other two co-accused persons and recovery of weapons of assault i.e. knife and iron rod on the pointing of the co-accused Irfan. It is to be recalled that Irfan, who appears to be the main accused of this crime in his confessional statement has implicated himself and his brother, namely, Mohd. Shadan @ Nadan of committing the murder of the two ladies by inflicting knife blows on their bodies, while the role which has been assigned in the confessional statement of main accused Irfan so far as the applicant is concerned is of only standing outside the house wherein the offence has been committed by them. Therefore, even if the case of the prosecution is believed as it is, the

¶20

role of only standing outside the house of the ladies, who have been found dead has been assigned to the applicant. Thus, the role of the instant applicant is distinguishable from the role of other two coaccused persons, who have confessed to have committed the offence by entering into the house of the ladies. Thus, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I find sufficient change in circumstances since the rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, which was dismissed as not pressed in order to exercise discretion in his favour, more so, when he is detained in prison in this case since 02.07.2022 without any previous criminal history. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶21

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .

¶22

Let the accused/applicant- Mohd. Sahbaj involved in abovementioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation and trial.

¶24

(ii) The applicant during the course of trial would not attempt to make any contact with any of the prosecution witness or his relatives and any lapse on this score shall be a sufficient ground for the trial Court to cancel the facility of bail granted by this Court.

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶26

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶28

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶29

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶30

(Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.)

¶31

Order Date :- 25.9.2024 Gurpreet Singh

¶32

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Sahbaj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sahbaj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chandra Kumari Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mumtaj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Pavan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Raja Ram Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Umesh Lonia Thru. His Mamiya Sasur (Father-in-Law) Sumer Chndra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Suresh Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others