Zafar @ Chanda vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.0023 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34 I.P.C., at Police Station- Mohammadabad, District- Ghazipur.

¶12

While pressing the instant application, learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶13

It is further stated that the applicant has not committed any crime and he has falsely been implicated in the instant case.

¶14

It is further stated that co-accused namely Afroz @ Chunnu has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9420 of 2025, as such, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. The relevant portion of the order dated 31.10.2025 reads as under:-

¶15

"3. While pressing the instant application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. which was lodged on 20.01.2023 as F.I.R./Case Crime No.0023/2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., at Police Station - Mohammadabad, District - Ghazipur, the basis of the criminal proceeding pending against the applicant in connection of which the applicant is in jail since 08.07.2024 is completely false and concocted. In continuation, to support the same, the following facts have been brought to the notice of the Court :-

¶16

(i) An F.I.R. was lodged by the co-accused Mukhtan Ansari, who is no more, on 15.07.2001, which was registered as Case Crime No.251 of 2001, at Police Station - Mohammadabad, District - Ghazipur making allegations against Brijesh Singh S/o Ravindra Nath Singh, Tribhuvan Singh S/o Ramapati Singh, Anil Singh S/o Ram Nagina Singh and considering the allegations therein, the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 427 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act.

¶17

(ii) According to the F.I.R. Case Crime No.251 of 2001, one Ram Chander (Gunner) and another person Rustam @ Babu were died and the present applicant was sitting in other vehicle. Thus, the applicant is the injured witness of Case Crime No.251 of 2001.

¶18

(iii) In the investigation of Case Crime No. 251 of 2001, the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O.") recorded the statement of various persons including Taukeer S/o Mahboob Ahmad, Ramesh S/o Jaddu, Israil S/o Altaf Ansari, Sharafraj @ Munni S/o Mohd. Kalim.

¶19

(iv) After completion of the investigation the I.O. submitted charge sheet against Brijesh Singh S/o Ravindra Nath Singh, Tribhuvan Singh S/o Ramapati Singh and Anil Singh S/o

¶20

BAIL No. 11097 of 2025

¶21

2

¶22

Ram Nagina Singh.

¶23

(v) The trial of the Case Crime No. 251 of 2001 is pending and the applicant (injured witness of Case Crime No. 251 of 2001) is one of the witnesses of prosecution. Some witnesses have already been examined including Ramesh, Isarail and Taukeer.

¶24

(vi) Shailendra Kumar Rai, informant of Case Crime No.0023 of 2023, whose son Manoj Kumar Rai was also died on account of firearm injury, on 15.07.2001 lodged the F.I.R. against the applicant and other co-accused persons namely Mohd. Shahid, Mukhtar Ansari (since deceased), Surendra Sharma (Driver), Gaus Moinuddin and Kamal after a delay of more than 22 years. This F.I.R. was lodged as F.I.R./Case Crime No.0023/2023 dated 20.01.2023, at Police Station-Mohammadabad, District-Ghazipur making allegations therein to attract the Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C.

¶25

(vii) According to the F.I.R. the informant is the witness of last seen, though the same is not correct.

¶26

(viii) The delay of about 22 years in lodging the F.I.R. is fatal to the story of the prosecution. In support of the same reliance has been placed upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumedh Singh Saini Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2021) 15 SCC 588.

¶27

(ix) Apart from the above, the case of the prosecution is false and concocted can also be deduced from the fact that the witnesses of the prosecution named above namely Taukeer S/o Mahboob Ahmad, Ramesh S/o Jaddu, Israil S/o Altaf Ansari, Sharafraj @ Munni S/o Mohd. Kalim earlier supported the story of the prosecution leveled in the F.I.R. Case Crime No. 251 of 2001 and now they would be supporting the story of the prosecution as narrated in the highly belated F.I.R. of the incident of 15.07.2001 lodged on 20.01.2023 registered as F.I.R./Case Crime No.0023/2023.

¶28

4. It is next submitted that a perusal of the statement of the above named witnesses of the prosecution recorded during investigation of Case Crime No.0023/2023 would indicate that role of causing injury to Manoj Kumar Rai S/o Shailendra Kumar Rai (informant of F.I.R. No. 0023/2023) has not been assigned to the present applicant.

¶29

5. It is also submitted that the role of catching hold in connection with the deceased Ram Chander (Gunner) has been assigned to the co-accused Mohd. Shahid, Kamal, Surendra Sharma (Driver) and Sarafaraz Ansari @ Munni, who has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate bench of this court vide order dated 04.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2827 of 2025.

¶30

6. As far as the criminal history of the applicant is concerned, the same has been explained in paragraph 70 of the bail application which has not been refuted by the learned A.G.A. or by learned counsel for the informant and it is a well settled law of the Hon'ble Apex Court that on the sole basis of the criminal history the bail cannot be denied to the accused.

¶31

7. It is also submitted that the F.I.R./Case Crime No.0023/2023 has been lodged only to pressurize the applicant and others in connection with the crime pointed out in F.I.R. registered as Case Crime No.251 of 2001.

¶32

8. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail and in case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶33

9. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the applicant's counsel.

¶34

10. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the informant and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and delay of about 22 years in lodging the F.I.R. as also the role assigned to the applicant and without going into the

¶35

BAIL No. 11097 of 2025

¶36

3

¶37

merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶38

11. Let the applicant -Afroz alias Chunnu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two reliable sureties out of which one should be of family member, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court, concerned subject to following conditions:-"

¶39

It is also stated that criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph 52 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, which has not been refuted by the learned AGA.

¶40

It is submitted that considering aforesaid, the applicant, who is in jail since 18.08.2023, is entitled to be released on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶41

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the applicant's counsel including that co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court.

¶42

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and also taking note of the fact that co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court and without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶43

Let the applicant- Zafar @ Chanda be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties, out of which one should be of family member, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :-

¶44

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶45

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶46

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶47

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶48

(v) 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.

¶49

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶50

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶51

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶52

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶53

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶54

November 24, 2025 Arun/-

¶55

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶56

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Zafar @ Chanda v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zafar @ Chanda v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Manoj Katiyar vs Dr. Anand Kumar Singh v.C., Chandra Shekhar Azad Univ. of Agriculture and Tech. Kanpur and 2 Others

Kamal Kishor vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Indra Pal vs Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Hazratganj Lucknow

Vikas Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mo. Shahid vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Gayasuddin Ahmad vs CBI Thru. Its Branch Head Lko.