Zullu Alias Zulfikar vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75966

Court No. - 71

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8681 of 2025

Applicant :- Zullu Alias Zulfikar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant-accused in Case Crime No. 39 of 2021, under Section 302, 201, 34 IPC, Police StationShahpur, District- Muzaffar Nagar with the prayer to enlarge the applicantaccused on bail.

¶8

The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.02.2024, which is reproduced as under :-

¶9

"1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicantaccused today, is taken on record.

¶10

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicantaccused involved in Case Crime No.39 of 2021, under sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Shahpur, District-Muzaffar Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶12

4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant-accused that applicant-accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant-accused is not named in the first information report, which was lodged against unknown person. It was stated that involvement of applicant was shown during investigation on the basis of statements of witnesses. There is no eye-witness of alleged incident. Referring to statements of witnesses, namely, Shahnawaj, Israr, Imran, Khurshid, Bakir and Sattar, it was submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case merely on the basis of suspicion. The alleged extra judicial confession made by the applicant, is wholly false and the alleged recovery of knife shown at the instance of applicant is also false. Statement of one Jubair was also referred and it was submitted that his statement is not reliable. Criminal history of applicant has been explained. Co-accused Majid @ Majia has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.9.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.25584 of 2021. It was further submitted that applicant-accused is languishing in jail since 14.02.2021, having no criminal history, and

¶13

that in case the applicant-accused is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in the trial.

¶14

5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that there is evidence that applicant was involved in the incident. Statement of Jubair was also referred, who has inter-alia stated that on the night of incident he has seen the applicant and co-accused Majid @ Majia near the place of incident. The recovery of knife, used in the alleged incident, has also been shown from the applicant-accused. It was also stated that applicant-accused has made extra judicial confession. It was also pointed out that as per F.S.L. report, human blood spots have been found at the knife recovered from the applicant. In view of these facts the case of the applicant is distinguished from co-accused Majid @ Majia, who has been granted bail. It is further submitted that applicant has criminal history of four cases including a case under Section 307 IPC and one case under Gangster Act.

¶15

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant-accused is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the bail application of applicant-accused is hereby rejected.

¶16

7. However, keeping in view of the period of incarceration of applicant-accused, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to decide the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment."

¶17

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the first information report and he was falsely implicated during investigation and in-fact no one had witnessed the alleged incident. The alleged extra judicial confession attributed to the applicant is false and he has not made any such statement. Applicant had no previous criminal history but after this case, he was falsely involved in some other cases. It is further submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.02.2024 and after that all the material witnesses have been examined before the trial court. Complainant/P.W.-1 Meharban Singh is not eye witness of the alleged incident. The alleged eye witnesses, who have been examined as P.W.-2 to P.W.-7, have not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile. Learned counsel for the applicant referred the statement of P.W.-2 to P.W.-7 and submitted that in view of their statements, whole prosecution version becomes doubtful. It was stated that the applicant is in jail since 14.02.2021 and that there are number of formal witnesses, who are yet to be examined. It was stated that in case the applicant is granted bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate during trial.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of applicant has already been rejected on merits and there is evidence against the applicant that the applicant was involved in murder of the deceased. However, it could not be disputed that material witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile.

¶19

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

¶20

Let the applicant-accused - Zullu Alias Zulfikar 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:

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(iv) The applicant-accused shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶25

(v) The applicant-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.

¶26

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

¶27

Order Date :- 9.5.2025

¶28

Sanjeet

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Zullu Alias Zulfikar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zullu Alias Zulfikar 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

Richa Dwivedi vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Diksha Alias Subi vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Bansal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Tripathi vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Awasthi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Bharti vs State of U.P. and 3 Others