Dismissed

Maroof Ahmed S/O Ayyub Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Feb 2024CRLMB/657/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the bail application of an accused facing murder charges. The court noted the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and alleged to have actively participated in the injury causing the deceased's death, distinguishing his case from a co-accused granted bail who was not named initially.

What did the court decide?

The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Maroof Ahmed S/O Ayyub Khan Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:6056]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 657/2024 Maroof Ahmed S/o Ayyub Khan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o

¶5

Chahedya Police Station Anta District Baran (Rajasthan). (Presently Confined In District Jail Baran)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirudh Tyagi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP Mr. Harendra Singh

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶12

Order

¶13

06/02/2024

¶14

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner Maroof Ahmed. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 435/2022 registered at Police Station Anta, District Baran for the offence(s) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 427, 302 & 120-B of IPC.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly placed co-accused-Mohammad Asad @ Pintu has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.06.2023. He further submits that the name of the accused-petitioner Maroof Ahmed is not

[2024:RJ-JP:6056]

[CRLMB-657/2024]

(2 of 4)

mentioned in the FIR, later on, in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Zunaid Mirza and Kasid Mirza have mentioned the name of the accused-petitioner. He also submits that Zunaid Mirza and Kasid Mirza are planted witnesses and were not present at the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Zunaid Mirza and Kasid Mirza have stated that they were also assaulted whereas, the injury report was prepared on 20.12.2022 and the concerned medical jurist has indicated the period of injury was within six hours, therefore the presence of Zunaid Mirza and Kasid Mirza at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 29.12.2022 and the trial of the case may take considerable time. Therefore, the benefit of grant of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶20

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the grant of bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that in the handwritten FIR, lodged by Zunaid Mirza, name of the accused-petitioner Maroof Ahmed S/o Ayyub Khan has been mentioned. He further submits that in the FIR, it is specifically narrated that Maroof Ahmed S/o Ayyub Khan caused injuries with the aid of gandasi. Eye-witnesses Zunaid Mirza & Kasid Mirza in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have specifically stated the name of the accused-petitioner, therefore, presence of present petitioner along with other co-accused, causing injuries to the deceased is apparent. He also submits that accused- petitioner Maroof Ahmed along with the co-accused Abid, Wasim, Naeem, Abrar, Ubaid, Dujana, Shahrukh, Shakil Master

[2024:RJ-JP:6056]

[CRLMB-657/2024]

(3 of 4)

and Sintu @ Zunaid assaulted the father of the complainantZunaid Mirza and caused as many as twelve injuries to the deceased- Mohammad Akhtar Bilal Baig. He further submits that the petitioner and other co-accused used firearms against the deceased, resulting to his death, therefore, the case of the present petitioner is entirely different from the case of co-accusedMohammad Asad @ Pintu. Hence, looking to the gravity of the offence, the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

¶25

Considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. It is alleged against the petitioner that he along with other co-accused assaulted the deceased Mohammad Akhtar Bilal Baig and caused as many as twelve injuries to the deceased, resulting into his death. The name of the present petitioner with specific allegation is mentioned in the handwritten FIR lodged by the complainant- Zunaid Mirza. In the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., Zunaid Mirza and Kasid Mirza have categorically stated that accused petitioner assaulted the Mohammad Akhtar Bilal Baig with the aid of gandasi and other co-accused also caused various injuries to the deceased. PostMortem Reprt of the deceased shows that deceased suffered as many as twelve injuries and due to cumulative effect of the injuries, deceased died on 18.12.2022.

¶26

As far as granting bail to the other accused- Mohammad Asad @ Pintu is concerned, this Court vide order dated 14.06.2023 has allowed the bail application on the ground that he has not been named in the FIR. Considering the fact that the specific allegation has been made against the petitioner and his

[2024:RJ-JP:6056]

[CRLMB-657/2024]

(4 of 4)

active role, in causing injuries to the injured, has been assigned, therefore, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶31

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is

¶32

dismissed.

¶33

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶34

1- Mohit

Maroof Ahmed S/O Ayyub Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maroof Ahmed S/O Ayyub Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul S/O Kundan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shakti Son of Shri Suresh @ Seeti Vs State of Rajasthan

Aabid @ Raja S/O Abdul Rashid and Guddu Vs State of Rajasthan

Shakeel Brothers Vs Firm Devendra Kumar Bhanu Kumar Proprietor Nand Kishor

Banwari S/O Pratap Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju @ Rajveer Singh S/O Shri Balveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan