Ajmal Hasan v. State of U.P.). The second bail application of the

2. Heard Sri Harshit Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Ajmal Hasan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.372 of 2021, u/s 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Deoband, District Saharanpur.

4. This is a fourth bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 29.4.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55732 of 2021, thereafter the second bail application of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 20.11.2023 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3690 of 2023 and thereafter the third bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 4.4.2024 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10901 of 2024.

5. The only argument of learned counsel for the applicant is regarding period of incarceration of the applicant. It is argued that the applicant is in jail since 24.6.2021 and the evidence of P.W.1 is being recorded, as such looking to the period of incarceration, the applicant be enlarged on bail. It is argued that he does not intend to address the Court on merits of the matter since this is the fourth bail application of the applicant.

6. Learned counsel for the State has been heard.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.4.2022, the said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Zubair, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Ajmal Hasan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.372 of 2021, under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur. The FIR of the present case was lodged on 22.6.2021 at about 5.10 a.m. by Naushad against the applicant and four other accused persons with regards to the murder of his cousin brother Firoz which was alleged to have taken place on 21.6.2021 at about 7.45 hours. In the said report it is mentioned that prior to the occurrence, co-accused Ajam, applicant Ajmal Hasan and Mukarram had entered into a marpeet with Firoz who ran away and saved himself after which the accused persons caught him near the shop of doctor bangali and assaulted him with knife due to which he received injury on his vital part of the body. Mohsin, Mujeeb, Mohsin, the brother of the first informant and the first informant saw the incident. Firoz was taken to the hospital in precarious condition from where he was referred to Saharanpur from where he was again referred to higher centre where during treatment he died. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of about ten hours for which there is no explanation given. It is argued that during the investigation the police has exonerated four co-accused persons namely Ajam, Shahrukh @ Bhura, Parvez and Mukarram. The first informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has reiterated the version of the FIR. The other alleged witnesses Mujeeb, Mohsin, Mohsin, the brother of the first informant have stated that they were told about the incident by Naushad and the first informant and as such they were not eye-witnesses of the incident. Although the police has shown the recovery of knife on the pointing out of the applicant but there is no corroboration of the use of the said weapon. The first informant although claims himself to be an eye-witness of the incident but he is not an eye- witness and he is a chance witness. There is a CCTV footage on the basis of which the four other accused persons have been exonerated by the police in which there is no credible evidence seen against the applicant. It is further argued that the present incident is stated to have taken at 7.45 p.m. but CCTV footage has shown of the fight of the applicant with the deceased at 8.20.50 p.m. which does not co-relate with the incident as stated in the FIR. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 27 of the affidavit and is in jail since 24.6.2021. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first informant is an eye-witness of the incident who has stated that the applicant assaulted the deceased with knife. The postmortem report corroborates the prosecution story. A blood stained knife has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant which is the weapon of assault. Even there are three other witnesses of the incident who have been mentioned in the FIR. The delay in lodging of the FIR has been satisfactory explained by the first informant in the report itself. It is further argued that in the CCTV footage it is seen that the applicant was having a fight with the deceased after which he was seen running towards his house. The same is sufficient to implicate him and to draw the conclusion that he was the person who has assaulted the deceased. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR. There is credible evidence of CCTV footage. The delay in lodging of the FIR has been explained. The time of recording is a matter of evidence. Blood-stained knife has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. Postmortem examination report corroborates the prosecution case. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

8. Thereafter the second bail application of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 20.11.2023, the said order reads as under:- "1. List revised. No one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this bail application despite the fact that there are three learned counsels appearing on behalf of the applicant. Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Triveni Saran Rai, learned counsel for the State are present.

2. This is a second bail application. The first bail application on behalf of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.4.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.55732 of 2021.

3. Since there is no representation from the side of the applicant, the present bail application is dismissed for want of prosecution."

9. Thereafter the third bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 4.4.2024, the said order reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This is the third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.55732 of 2021 (Ajmal Hasan vs. State of U.P.). The second bail application of the applicant was rejected for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3690 of 2023 (Ajmal Hasan vs. State of U.P.).

3. This is the third bail application. The sole ground as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant in the present third bail application is that the applicant is in jail since 24.06.2021 and after the framing of charge in the matter on 20.04.2022. The examination-in-chief of P.W.1 was recorded after which an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution to summon some additional accused persons, which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 12.01.2023 and co-accused Mukarram, Shahrukh @ Bhoora, Azam and Parvej have been summoned but the trial since then has not yet proceeded and only the examination in chief of PW1 has been completed, paragraph nos.24 and 26 of the affidavit in respect of the bail application have been filed. It is submitted that looking to the said aspect and the detention of the applicant, the bail of the applicant be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court by a detailed order on merits. It is submitted that insofar as the argument regarding the delay the trial concerned, the same has not fold good as after the recording of the examination-in-chief of PW1, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed, which was allowed and additional accused persons were summoned which shows that the trial court is taking up the matter regularly which is proceeding as per law. It is submitted that as such there is no fresh and new ground argued in the present bail application, which may be dismissed.

5. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2022, the same is reads as under: "Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Zubair, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Ajmal Hasan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.372 of 2021, under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur. The FIR of the present case was lodged on 22.6.2021 at about 5.10 a.m. by Naushad against the applicant and four other accused persons with regards to the murder of his cousin brother Firoz which was alleged to have taken place on 21.6.2021 at about 7.45 hours. In the said report it is mentioned that prior to the occurrence, co-accused Ajam, applicant Ajmal Hasan and Mukarram had entered into a marpeet with Firoz who ran away and saved himself after which the accused persons caught him near the shop of doctor bangali and assaulted him with knife due to which he received injury on his vital part of the body. Mohsin, Mujeeb, Mohsin, the brother of the first informant and the first informant saw the incident. Firoz was taken to the hospital in precarious condition from where he was referred to Saharanpur from where he was again referred to higher centre where during treatment he died. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of about ten hours for which there is no explanation given. It is argued that during the investigation the police has exonerated four co-accused persons namely Ajam, Shahrukh @ Bhura, Parvez and Mukarram. The first informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has reiterated the version of the FIR. The other alleged witnesses Mujeeb, Mohsin, Mohsin, the brother of the first informant have stated that they were told about the incident by Naushad and the first informant and as such they were not eye-witnesses of the incident. Although the police has shown the recovery of knife on the pointing out of the applicant but there is no corroboration of the use of the said weapon. The first informant although claims himself to be an eye-witness of the incident but he is not an eye- witness and he is a chance witness. There is a CCTV footage on the basis of which the four other accused persons have been exonerated by the police in which there is no credible evidence seen against the applicant. It is further argued that the present incident is stated to have taken at 7.45 p.m. but CCTV footage has shown of the fight of the applicant with the deceased at 8.20.50 p.m. which does not co-relate with the incident as stated in the FIR. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 27 of the affidavit and is in jail since 24.6.2021. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first informant is an eye-witness of the incident who has stated that the applicant assaulted the deceased with knife. The postmortem report corroborates the prosecution story. A blood stained knife has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant which is the weapon of assault. Even there are three other witnesses of the incident who have been mentioned in the FIR. The delay in lodging of the FIR has been satisfactory explained by the first informant in the report itself. It is further argued that in the CCTV footage it is seen that the applicant was having a fight with the deceased after which he was seen running towards his house. The same is sufficient to implicate him and to draw the conclusion that he was the person who has assaulted the deceased. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR. There is credible evidence of CCTV footage. The delay in lodging of the FIR has been explained. The time of recording is a matter of evidence. Blood-stained knife has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. Postmortem examination report corroborates the prosecution case. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

6. The second bail application of the applicant was rejected for want of prosecution vide order dated 20.11.2023.

7. The present third bail application which is being pressed on the ground of delay in trial only does not in any manner show any delay in trial which can be stated to be because of the prosecution or the court. The court has taken up the trial and recorded the examination-in-chief of the first informant as P.W.1. Subsequently, on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the same being allowed and four additional accused being summoned goes to show that the trial court is regularly proceeding with the matter.

8. There is no such fresh and new ground in the present third bail application. The same is thus, rejected."

10. The only argument as is being canvased is the period of incarceration of the applicant. The trial is going on in which statement of one witness has been recorded, the same does not show that the trial is at a stand still. There is no fresh and new ground argued. I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Gaurav Kuls

2. Heard Sri Harshit Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Ajmal Hasan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.372 of 2021, u/s 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Deoband, District Saharanpur.

4. This is a fourth bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 29.4.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55732 of 2021, thereafter the second bail application of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 20.11.2023 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3690 of 2023 and thereafter the third bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 4.4.2024 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10901 of 2024.

5. The only argument of learned counsel for the applicant is regarding period of incarceration of the applicant. It is argued that the applicant is in jail since 24.6.2021 and the evidence of P.W.1 is being recorded, as such looking to the period of incarceration, the applicant be enlarged on bail. It is argued that he does not intend to address the Court on merits of the matter since this is the fourth bail application of the applicant.

6. Learned counsel for the State has been heard.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.4.2022, the said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Zubair, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Ajmal Hasan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.372 of 2021, under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur. The FIR of the present case was lodged on 22.6.2021 at about 5.10 a.m. by Naushad against the applicant and four other accused persons with regards to the murder of his cousin brother Firoz which was alleged to have taken place on 21.6.2021 at about 7.45 hours. In the said report it is mentioned that prior to the occurrence, co-accused Ajam, applicant Ajmal Hasan and Mukarram had entered into a marpeet with Firoz who ran away and saved himself after which the accused persons caught him near the shop of doctor bangali and assaulted him with knife due to which he received injury on his vital part of the body. Mohsin, Mujeeb, Mohsin, the brother of the first informant and the first informant saw the incident. Firoz was taken to the hospital in precarious condition from where he was referred to Saharanpur from where he was again referred to higher centre where during treatment he died. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of about ten hours for which there is no explanation given. It is argued that during the investigation the police has exonerated four co-accused persons namely Ajam, Shahrukh @ Bhura, Parvez and Mukarram. The first informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has reiterated the version of the FIR. The other alleged witnesses Mujeeb, Mohsin, Mohsin, the brother of the first informant have stated that they were told about the incident by Naushad and the first informant and as such they were not eye-witnesses of the incident. Although the police has shown the recovery of knife on the pointing out of the applicant but there is no corroboration of the use of the said weapon. The first informant although claims himself to be an eye-witness of the incident but he is not an eye- witness and he is a chance witness. There is a CCTV footage on the basis of which the four other accused persons have been exonerated by the police in which there is no credible evidence seen against the applicant. It is further argued that the present incident is stated to have taken at 7.45 p.m. but CCTV footage has shown of the fight of the applicant with the deceased at 8.20.50 p.m. which does not co-relate with the incident as stated in the FIR. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 27 of the affidavit and is in jail since 24.6.2021. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first informant is an eye-witness of the incident who has stated that the applicant assaulted the deceased with knife. The postmortem report corroborates the prosecution story. A blood stained knife has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant which is the weapon of assault. Even there are three other witnesses of the incident who have been mentioned in the FIR. The delay in lodging of the FIR has been satisfactory explained by the first informant in the report itself. It is further argued that in the CCTV footage it is seen that the applicant was having a fight with the deceased after which he was seen running towards his house. The same is sufficient to implicate him and to draw the conclusion that he was the person who has assaulted the deceased. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR. There is credible evidence of CCTV footage. The delay in lodging of the FIR has been explained. The time of recording is a matter of evidence. Blood-stained knife has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. Postmortem examination report corroborates the prosecution case. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

8. Thereafter the second bail application of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 20.11.2023, the said order reads as under:- "1. List revised. No one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this bail application despite the fact that there are three learned counsels appearing on behalf of the applicant. Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Triveni Saran Rai, learned counsel for the State are present.

2. This is a second bail application. The first bail application on behalf of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.4.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.55732 of 2021.

3. Since there is no representation from the side of the applicant, the present bail application is dismissed for want of prosecution."

9. Thereafter the third bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 4.4.2024, the said order reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This is the third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.55732 of 2021 (Ajmal Hasan vs. State of U.P.). The second bail application of the applicant was rejected for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3690 of 2023 (Ajmal Hasan vs. State of U.P.).

3. This is the third bail application. The sole ground as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant in the present third bail application is that the applicant is in jail since 24.06.2021 and after the framing of charge in the matter on 20.04.2022. The examination-in-chief of P.W.1 was recorded after which an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution to summon some additional accused persons, which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 12.01.2023 and co-accused Mukarram, Shahrukh @ Bhoora, Azam and Parvej have been summoned but the trial since then has not yet proceeded and only the examination in chief of PW1 has been completed, paragraph nos.24 and 26 of the affidavit in respect of the bail application have been filed. It is submitted that looking to the said aspect and the detention of the applicant, the bail of the applicant be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court by a detailed order on merits. It is submitted that insofar as the argument regarding the delay the trial concerned, the same has not fold good as after the recording of the examination-in-chief of PW1, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed, which was allowed and additional accused persons were summoned which shows that the trial court is taking up the matter regularly which is proceeding as per law. It is submitted that as such there is no fresh and new ground argued in the present bail application, which may be dismissed.

5. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2022, the same is reads as under: "Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Zubair, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Ajmal Hasan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.372 of 2021, under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur. The FIR of the present case was lodged on 22.6.2021 at about 5.10 a.m. by Naushad against the applicant and four other accused persons with regards to the murder of his cousin brother Firoz which was alleged to have taken place on 21.6.2021 at about 7.45 hours. In the said report it is mentioned that prior to the occurrence, co-accused Ajam, applicant Ajmal Hasan and Mukarram had entered into a marpeet with Firoz who ran away and saved himself after which the accused persons caught him near the shop of doctor bangali and assaulted him with knife due to which he received injury on his vital part of the body. Mohsin, Mujeeb, Mohsin, the brother of the first informant and the first informant saw the incident. Firoz was taken to the hospital in precarious condition from where he was referred to Saharanpur from where he was again referred to higher centre where during treatment he died. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of about ten hours for which there is no explanation given. It is argued that during the investigation the police has exonerated four co-accused persons namely Ajam, Shahrukh @ Bhura, Parvez and Mukarram. The first informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has reiterated the version of the FIR. The other alleged witnesses Mujeeb, Mohsin, Mohsin, the brother of the first informant have stated that they were told about the incident by Naushad and the first informant and as such they were not eye-witnesses of the incident. Although the police has shown the recovery of knife on the pointing out of the applicant but there is no corroboration of the use of the said weapon. The first informant although claims himself to be an eye-witness of the incident but he is not an eye- witness and he is a chance witness. There is a CCTV footage on the basis of which the four other accused persons have been exonerated by the police in which there is no credible evidence seen against the applicant. It is further argued that the present incident is stated to have taken at 7.45 p.m. but CCTV footage has shown of the fight of the applicant with the deceased at 8.20.50 p.m. which does not co-relate with the incident as stated in the FIR. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 27 of the affidavit and is in jail since 24.6.2021. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first informant is an eye-witness of the incident who has stated that the applicant assaulted the deceased with knife. The postmortem report corroborates the prosecution story. A blood stained knife has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant which is the weapon of assault. Even there are three other witnesses of the incident who have been mentioned in the FIR. The delay in lodging of the FIR has been satisfactory explained by the first informant in the report itself. It is further argued that in the CCTV footage it is seen that the applicant was having a fight with the deceased after which he was seen running towards his house. The same is sufficient to implicate him and to draw the conclusion that he was the person who has assaulted the deceased. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR. There is credible evidence of CCTV footage. The delay in lodging of the FIR has been explained. The time of recording is a matter of evidence. Blood-stained knife has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. Postmortem examination report corroborates the prosecution case. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

6. The second bail application of the applicant was rejected for want of prosecution vide order dated 20.11.2023.

7. The present third bail application which is being pressed on the ground of delay in trial only does not in any manner show any delay in trial which can be stated to be because of the prosecution or the court. The court has taken up the trial and recorded the examination-in-chief of the first informant as P.W.1. Subsequently, on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the same being allowed and four additional accused being summoned goes to show that the trial court is regularly proceeding with the matter.

8. There is no such fresh and new ground in the present third bail application. The same is thus, rejected."

10. The only argument as is being canvased is the period of incarceration of the applicant. The trial is going on in which statement of one witness has been recorded, the same does not show that the trial is at a stand still. There is no fresh and new ground argued. I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Gaurav Kuls