Firoz and Another Vs State of U.P.

The present second bail application has been filed by the applicantsaccused Firoz and Faizan in Case Crime No.711 of 2018, under Sections 396, 412 IPC, P.S.- Murad Nagar, District- Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicants-accused on bail.

¶10

The first bail application of applicants was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2024, which is reproduced as under :-

¶11

"1. Both the applications have been preferred in the same case and crime number and thus, both the applications are being decided by a common order.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicants-accused, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶13

These applications have been filed by the applicants-accused Waseem @ Raj @ Nepali, Imran Hasmi, Firoj and Faijan involved in Case Crime No.711 of 2018, under Sections 396, 412 IPC, P.S. Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge them on bail.

¶14

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants-accused that applicants-accused are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The first information report was lodged on 07.06.2018, alleging that on the night of 6/7.06.2018 while injured Narendra along with his wife Maya Devi was sleeping at his house, some persons trespassed into his house and they have assaulted them and committed robbery. Later on, Maya Devi has succumbed to injuries. Learned counsel submitted that applicant is not named in first information report. After four days of the incident, statement of alleged witness Shiv Kumar was recorded, wherein, he has stated that on the previous day to the incident, some persons have come at the house of deceased for begging and they have disclosed their names as Waseem and Firoj and they have committed the incident in the night. It was stated that the story developed by witness Shiv Kumar is quite unnatural and improbable. Later on, false recovery of some jewellery, mobile phone and documents was shown at the instance of applicants and co-

¶15

BAIL No. 20032 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

accused persons but there is no independent witness of alleged recovery. Further, no test identification parade of the case property has been conducted. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicants. The criminal history of applicant Wasim has duly been explained and that after arrest in this case he was shown involved in several cases. Lastly, it was submitted that applicants-accused are languishing in jail since 23.06.2018, and that in case the applicants-accused are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in the trial.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the incident is quite heinous in nature, wherein the the applicants have trespassed into the house of deceased and committed murder of deceased Maya Devi and caused the injuries to her husband Narendra and committed robbery. It was pointed out that a number of articles, including jewellery, pan card, bank pass book, mobile phone and some other articles, robbed from the house of deceased, were recovered from the applicants. The trial is at advanced stage.

¶19

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, stage of trial, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, both the bail applications of applicants-accused Waseem @ Raj @ Nepali, Imran Hasmi, Firoj and Faijan are hereby rejected.

¶20

However, keeping in view of the period of incarceration of applicants-accused, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to decide the same preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment."

¶21

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicantsaccused are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The first information report was lodged on 07.06.2018, alleging that on the night of 6/7.06.2018 while injured Narendra along with his wife- Maya Devi was sleeping at his house, some persons trespassed into his house and they have assaulted them and committed robbery. Later on, Maya Devi has succumbed to injuries. The applicants are not named in first information report. After four days of the incident, statement of alleged witness - Shiv Kumar was recorded, wherein, he has stated that on the previous day to the incident, some persons have come at the house of deceased for begging and they have disclosed their names as Waseem and Firoj and they have committed the incident in the night. It is further submitted that first bail application of applicants was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2024 and after that statement of above-referred witness- Shiv Kumar has been recorded before the trial court and in his statement he has not named the applicants and in his cross-examination he has stated that he has no knowledge about this case. Recovery of jewellery shown at joint pointing out of applicants and co-accused persons is false and there is no independent witness of the same. Regarding criminal history of applicants, it was submitted that most of the cases were imposed upon applicants along with present case and that criminal history has been explained. While rejecting the first bail application

¶22

BAIL No. 20032 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

of applicants, the trial court was directed to expedite the trial and to decide the same preferably within a period of nine months but trial has not been concluded so far, whereas applicants are in judicial custody since 23.06.2018 and they have already undergone detention of about seven years. It was further pointed out that since last two years, no witness has been examined before the trial court so far and in view of the aforesaid facts the trial of the case would take sufficient long time. Similarly placed co-accused Waseem @ Raj @ Nepali has already been granted by this Court. It was stated that in case the applicants are granted bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during the trial.

¶25

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the case relates to robbery and murder and first bail application of applicants has already been rejected on merits. It was further submitted that applicants have long criminal history of about 12 cases but it could not be disputed that similarly placed co-accused Waseem @ Raj @ Nepali has already been granted bail.

¶26

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts, particularly period of detention and stage of trial, without expressing any opinion on the merits, a case for bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶27

Let the applicants-accused - Firoz & Faizan , involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶28

(i) The applicants-accused shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶29

(ii) The applicants-accused shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶30

(iii) The applicants-accused shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶31

(iv) The applicants-accused shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶32

BAIL No. 20032 of 2025

¶33

4

¶34

(v) The applicants-accused 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶35

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicants-accused in accordance with law.

¶36

September 23, 2025 'SP'/-

¶37

(Raj Beer Singh,J.)

¶38

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Firoz and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz and Another v. State of U.P.

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