Mohd. Iqbal Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

This second bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Mohd. Iqbal Ansari for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.75 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prahibition Act, Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow, during trial as his first bail application has been rejected on merits vide order dated 8.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14466 of 2023 by this Court.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing this second bail application submits that the applicant is in jail in this case since 26.05.2023 and till now only four prosecution witnesses have been testified, however, two of such witnesses namely P.W.-1/Smt. Nuzhat and P.W.-2/Faiz Ahmad, who are the mother and brother of the deceased though have supported the case of the prosecution in their chief examination, however, they resiled in their cross examination and have disowned their statement given to the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and have categorically stated that the deceased was not being subjected to cruelty in lieu of any demand of dowry.

¶11

It is further submitted that two other witnesses namely P.W.3/Zafar and P.W.-4/Dilip, who were the sister and neighbour of the deceased, have also turned hostile and have also disowned their statement given to the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that since the star witnesses of the crime have not supported the case of the prosecution either in chief examination or in cross examination, conviction of the applicant is a remote possibility.

¶12

Elaborating further, it is submitted that even to attract the presumption as provided under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution is obliged to prove the initial facts on the basis of which the presumption could be drawn as provided under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act while having regard to the hostility of two witnesses and the statement of two other witnesses namely P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, the initial facts are not established on the basis of which any presumption as provided under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act may be drawn. It is also submitted that having regard to the number of witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet i.e. 33, conclusion of the trial is not possible in near future.

¶13

It is next submitted that the applicant had never subjected the deceased with cruelty in lieu of demand of dowry and the allegations, which have been levelled against him, are false, concocted and could not be believed and he is not having any criminal history, charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted 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.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the deceased had died otherwise than in normal circumstances (by hanging) in the house of the applicant and the applicant being the husband of the deceased was more responsible for her welfare. The informant as well as all the prosecution witnesses whose statements have been recorded by the investigating officer, have stated in specific terms that the deceased was being treated with cruelty in lieu of demand of a 'Car' and, thus, keeping in view that the applicant is the husband of the deceased, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 08.12.2023 and while rejecting first bail application of the applicant, a simultaneous direction was given to the trial court to conclude the trial as early as possible with a stipulation that if all the witnesses of fact are not examined within six months from passing of the order or the trial is not concluded within the same period, whichever is earlier, the applicant may renew his prayer of bail again before this Court. It is in this background, this second bail application has been moved as four prosecution witnesses have been testified before the trial court and perusal of the statement of these witnesses namely P.W.-1/Smt. Nuzhat, P.W.-2/Faiz Ahmad, P.W.-3/Zafar and P.W.-4/Dilip would show that two of these witnesses have resiled in cross examination and have not supported the case of the prosecution while two of such

¶16

witnesses namely P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 have turned hostile. It is on the basis of aforesaid evidence, it has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that possibility of conviction of the applicant is remote and the trial is not going to conclude in near future.

¶17

Having regard to the facts mentioned above, I find that there is a change in the circumstances since rejection of first bail application of the applicant and this change, in the considered opinion of this Court, is sufficient enough to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. This second bail application is thus allowed .

¶18

Let the accused/applicant- Mohd. Iqbal Ansari involved in above-mentioned 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 17.12.2024 Anupam S/-

¶26

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

Mohd. Iqbal Ansari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Iqbal Ansari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Imran Thru. His Wife Smt. Husna Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Asiya Thru. Her Husband Irfan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 10 Others

Vineet Kumar @ Anuj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mabood vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko

Sachchidanand Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko

Dharmendra Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.