Mohd. Shadan @ Nadan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46108

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4207 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Shadan @ Nadan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Singh,Ashwani Kumar Singh,Gauri Shankar Maurya

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accusedapplicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.223/2022, under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 450, 34 I.P.C., Police StationLambhua, District- Sultanpur,

¶9

It is 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 applicant and two other accused persons, namely, Irfan and Mohd. Sahbaj were shown to have been 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

¶10

Mohd. Shadan @ Nadan.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant submits that there is no eye witness to the incident. The case is of circumstantial evidence and on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused Irfan who is the main accused, applicant has been implicated. According to confessional statement of Irfan in police custody role of hitting the two deceased with iron rod has been assigned to the present applicant. There is no recovery from the applicant. No injury has been found on non-vital part of the two deceased persons to corroborate the prosecution version even if the confessional statement is believed as it is true that death has been caused by the iron rod. Weapon of assault has been recovered on the pointing out of the co-accused Irfan and not from the applicant. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 03.07.2022.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Mohd. Sahbaj has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5043 of 2024.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer and have submitted that it is a case of double murder; both mother and daughter have been brutally murdered. The scrap vendor Hari Prasad Agrahari from whom iron rod is said to have been purchased has stated that co-accused Irfan has purchased the same from him, this statement has given after the accused Irfan was arrested and his photo was published in the newspaper and he has identified him with the said photographs however, he has not taken the name of the applicant.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that in the process of arrest of the co-accused Irfan, Head Constable Shailendra

¶15

Pratap Singh has suffered linear abrasion on his left arm who has assigned the role of firing to the co-accused Irfan. The report submitted by the learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶16

Perused the record.

¶17

The ante mortem injuries suffered by the two deceased is extracted below:-

¶18

"Injuries of Sakuntala Maurya

¶19

1-I.W. 6X3cm present left ear.

¶20

2-I.W. 3X2cm bone deep 2cm below from left year.

¶21

3-I.W. 6X2cm bone deep 3cm above sull left ear.

¶22

4-I.W. 4X2cm bone deep just left eye below.

¶23

5-I.W. 3X2cm bone deep 3cm above from left ear.

¶24

6-I.W. 8X2cm Present Rt. side form head 7cm avove from Rt. Ear.

¶25

Injuries of Vijay Lakshami Maurya

¶26

1-I.W. 13X2.5cm bone deep present from Anterior Aspect of neck cutting trachea blood versel thyroid carti lage and cervical vertivaral

¶27

2-Abrasion 6X3cm Present Rt. side of shoulder below clavicle bone.

¶28

3-I.W. 8X3cm Muscle deep 4cm above skul Rt. ear lobe."

¶29

A perusal of the ante mortem injuries show that deceased Sakuntala has suffered six incised wounds. The deceased Lakshami has suffered two incised wounds and one abrasion. Abrasion is on the right side of soldier.

¶30

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties, nature of the ante mortem injuries suffered by two deceased, except confessional statement of the co-accused in police custody nothing has been found against the applicant, the recovery made from the co-accused Irfan and not from the present applicant, statement of Hari Prasad Agrahari and also considering the bail order of co-accused Mohd. Sahbaj (supra),

¶31

evidence collected by the Investigating officer, it appears that co-accused Irfan appears to be a main accused however, in his confessional statement he has implicated himself, his brother Mohd. Shadab and co-accused Sahbaj committing the murder of two ladies by inflicting the knife blows on their body, role of inflicting knife blows is not on the present applicant thus, the role of the applicant is distinguishable from the co-accused Irfan, it is a case of circumstantial evidence, there is no eye witness in this case, there is no other direct evidence, applicant has no criminal history, however, he is in jail since 03.07.222, out of 32 prosecution witnesses only three prosecution witnesses have been examined so also considering the judgment passed in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another : Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶32

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶33

Let the applicant Mohd. Shadan @ Nadan be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

(iii) 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.

¶37

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

¶38

shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶39

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS).

¶40

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS).

¶41

Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶42

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Shadan @ Nadan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shadan @ Nadan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

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

Raj Kapoor Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Juvenile X Thru. His Father Y Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Mohd. Sultan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Amit Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Sahdeo Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

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