High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79124 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13246 of 2025 Applicant :- Afzaal @ Afzal Husain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anjali Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Legal Reasoning
15. Further, however, during investigation when statements of other eye witnesses including second statement of the informant were recorded then they also stated that applicant caused head injury to the deceased but their statements were also recorded very belatedly after the statement of injured Azad. Considering this fact even prima facie their statements also appear to be doubtful as far as role given by them to the applicant is concerned. 16. Further, co-accused Abdul Qayyum, who was also named in the FIR along with applicant has already been released on bail and considering the FIR and first statement of the informant recorded during investigation the case of applicant is at par with him. 17. Further, applicant is facing trial under Section 304 IPC and he is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 27.03.2025. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant - Afzaal @ Afzal Husain 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. 21. 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. 22. 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 :- 14.5.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey and Ms. Anjali Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 123 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 297, 323, 308, 352, 504, 304, 120B IPC, Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj during pendency of the trial. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 06.04.2024 at 19.14 hours against applicant, co-accused Qayyum and Ashraf and 10-15 unknown persons and according to the FIR on 06.04.2024 at about 2.00 PM in the afternoon applicant and other accused persons made assault upon the brother of informant Ahmad Ali on his head through iron rod and bricks and when his nephew Azad tried to save him then they also made assault upon him. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits, initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 308 IPC and other sections but after the death of one of the injured Ahmad Ali case was converted under Section 304 IPC. 5. He further submits, from the FIR and first statement of the informant recorded during investigation it reflects, only general role has been assigned to all including applicant but when on 19.05.2024 statement of injured Azad was recorded by the Investigating Officer then he however stated that all the accused persons made assault but he also stated that applicant caused head injury to the deceased through rod, therefore, he tried to specify the role of the applicant but his statement was recorded after 45 days and from his injury report it could not be reflected that he sustained such injuries due to which earlier he was not in a position to give his statement, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his statement as far as role of causing injury to the deceased assigned to the applicant is concerned. 6. He further submits, however, thereafter other eye witnesses also started reiterating the statement of injured Azad and even informant in his second statement also repeated his version but as their statements were recorded after the statement of injured Azad quite belatedly, therefore, even no reliance can be placed on their statements with regard to role assigned to the applicant. 7. He further submits, it appears, during investigation when Investigating Officer find that deceased sustained only two injuries then he intentionally to make case of applicant more serious introduced new role to the applicant through the statement of witnesses. 8. He further submits, co-accused Abdul Qayyum, who was also named in the FIR along with applicant has been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and his bail order has been annexed at page 128 of the paper-book and considering the FIR and first statement of informant recorded during investigation, the case of applicant is at par with him. 9. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 27.03.2025. 10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted, however, in the FIR and in the first statement of the informant recorded during investigation only general role has been assigned to all the accused but when the statement of injured Azad was recorded during investigation then he assigned specific role of causing head injury to the deceased to the applicant but could not dispute the fact that his statement was recorded after about 45 days and he was not having such injury due to which earlier he was not in a position to give any such statement. 11. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that co-accused Abdul Qayyum has been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and considering the FIR and first statement of the informant, the case of applicant at par with him. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. It is a case in which as per allegation one person sustained injuries and one person died due to the assault made by the applicant and other accused but from the FIR and first statement of the informant recorded during investigation, it reflects, only general role has been assigned to all the accused. However, it reflects, during investigation when the statement of the injured Azad was recorded then he tried to attribute specific role of causing head injury to the deceased to the applicant but his statement was recorded after 45 days. 14. Further, however, from the record it reflects, injured Azad also sustained injuries but from the bail rejection order passed by the court concerned it reflects, he sustained injuries on his non vital parts but in spite of that his statement was recorded very belatedly, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that as his statement was recorded very belatedly, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his statement so for as role attributed to the applicant is concerned.