High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87969 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9947 of 2025 Applicant :- Aqib Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ambreen Masroor,Sadrul Islam Jafri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by applicant and counter affidavit filed by State are taken on record. 2. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, larned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sadrul Islam Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 177 of 2023, under Sections 302, 34 IPC & 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station- Meerapur, District- Muzaffarnagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant
Facts
submitted that however, applicant is named in the FIR along with co-accused Shama but admittedly, informant was not the eyewitness. 5. He further submitted that however, during investigation, when the second statement of the informant was recorded then he stated that when after receiving information, he went to hospital then in the hospital before his death, deceased informed him that applicant was the person who caused fire-arm injury to him and similar statements were also given by some other witnesses but prima facie, their statements do not appear to be convincing and at this stage, merely on the basis of alleged oral dying declaration of the deceased, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased. 6. He further submitted that however, as per prosecution, Lavish Ansari, the son of the deceased, was also the eye-witness and he, although, in his statement stated that applicant by causing fire-arm injury committed the murder of his father but his statement was recorded on 09.10.2013 i.e. after more than a month and considering delay in recording his statement, it reflects, he also could not see the real incident. 7. He further submitted that however, as per prosecution, applicant was also identified through CCTV footage but no such footage is on record and considering this fact, counter affidavit was called from the State and now counter affidavit of the State is on record and from its perusal, it could not be reflected that during investigation, Investigating Officer could procure any CCTV footage. 8. He further submitted that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record except his confessional statement before the police. 9. He further submitted that, however, during investigation, as per prosecution, on the pointing out of applicant, one country made pistol was also recovered, which allegedly used in the instant crime but till date the alleged recovered country made pistol could not be connected with the instant crime. 10. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of six other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the affidavit and supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and in majority of the cases, police implicated him during investigation and in all the cases, applicant is on bail. 11. He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 29.09.2023 i.e. for last more than one and half years. 12. Per contra, learned AGA, however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 14. However, it reflects, applicant was named in the FIR but admittedly informant was not the eye-witness. 15. Further, however, during investigation, when the second statement of the informant was recorded then he stated that in the hospital deceased informed him that applicant caused fire-arm injury to him and similar statements have also been given by the
Legal Reasoning
other witnesses but prima facie their statements do not appear to be convincing. Further, even this fact has been disclosed by the informant in his second statement. 16. Further, apart from the above evidence, as per persecution, son of the deceased, Lavish Ansari was the eyewitness and from his statement, although, it reflects, applicant caused fire-arm injury to his father but surprisingly his statement was recorded on 09.10.2023 i.e. after more than a month and no plausible explanation has been given by the Investigating Officer in this regard. 17. Further, however, as per prosecution, on the pointing out of applicant one country made pistol was also recovered, which he used in the alleged crime but till date, the alleged recovered country made pistol could not be connected with the instant crime. 18. Further, although, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of six other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the affidavit and in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and it reflects, in majority of the cases during investigation, he has been made accused and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that local police is highly inimical with the applicant and during investigation, police falsely implicated him in these cases, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage. Further, in all the six cases, applicant is on bail. 19. Further, law is settled, if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal history of an accused, his bail application should not be dismissed. 20. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since September, 2023 i.e. for last more than one and half years. 21. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 22. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 23. Let the applicant- Aqib be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 24. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 25. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad