High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5566 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43100 of 2024 Applicant :- Kasim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar,Raghvendra Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Chauhan,Umair Mahmood Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Umair Mahmood, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 113 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Mandawali, District Bijnor, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 23.7.2024 against the applicant and three others and according to the FIR after the death of the husband of the sister of the informant, applicant and co- accused Mohd Alam who were her devars, pressurized her to perform marriage with them but she performed marriage with some other person and on 12.6.2024 in the night when sister of the informant was sleeping in the house alongwith nephew of the informant Abdul Gani and his wife then after closing the door she was murdered and after her death her dead body was hanged. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged after 40 days and from perusal of the FIR it reflects that merely on the basis of suspicion, applicant who is devar of the deceased has been made accused in the present matter alongwith others. 5. He further submitted that even from the perusal of the FIR, it could not be reflected that at the time of incident, applicant was present in the house of the deceased. 6. He further submitted that applicant is devar of the deceased and he resided in District Podigadwal in Uttrakhand and at the time of incident, he was not present in the house where deceased died. 7. He further submitted that during investigation when the statement of the daughters in law of the the deceased were recorded who were present in the house where deceased died then they stated that in the morning, they witnessed the applicant in the house but merely on the basis of their statements which have been annexed alongwith the instant bail application, presence of the applicant cannot be presumed in the house as with regard to the presence of the applicant very casually both the witnesses stated that they witnessed him in the morning in the house where deceased died. 8. He further submitted that even except the presence of the applicant in the morning in the house where deceased died there is no evidence against the applicant on record. 9. He further submitted that as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then he confessed his guilt and on his pointing out one wooden stick was recovered and except the alleged presence of the applicant in the house of the deceased where she was died and recovery of one wooden stick, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record and merely on the basis of above evidence it can not be said that applicant committed the alleged murder. 10. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 6.9.2024. 11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case in which after murder of the deceased in haste she has been buried and when the appliaction was moved by her son then her post mortem was conducted and thereafter it was revealed that actually it is a case of murder as deceased died due to head injury, therefore, there is no delay in lodging the FIR. 12. They further submitted that applicant is the devar of the deceased and after the death of her first husband he used to pressurize her to perform marriage with him, therefore, he was having motive to commit crime as deceased against his wishes had performed her second marriage with some other person. 13. They further submitted that on the pointing out of the applicant one wooden stick was also recovered which was used in the crime and therefore, considering above facts applicant should not be released on bail. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 15. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and it reflects that when statements of witnesses Noor and Amna daughters in law of the deceased were recovered during investigation then they stated that in the next marriage when they wake up then they witnessed that applicant was present in their house where deceased died and as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then he confessed his guilt and on his pointing out one wooden stick was recovered and except the above evidences, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. 16. From the record, it reflects that applicant is the resident of District Podigadwal in District Uttrakhand and except the statement of Noor and Amna, there is no evidence that applicant was present in the house where deceased died and from perusal of the statements of Noor and Amna which have been annexed alongwith the instant bail application it reflects that they very casually stated that in the next morning they witnessed the applicant while he was sitting alongwith the co-accused Abdul Gani. 17. Further, considering the fact that applicant is the real devar of the deceased and he was witnessed by both the ladies in the next morning, possibility cannot be ruled out that after receiving information he would have been arrived at the house of the deceased as it appears, he resided hardly 30 KM from the place of incident, i.e. house of deceased, therefore, merely due to his presence, at this stage, it cannot be said that he also involved in the present crime. 18. Further as far as recovery of wooden stick on the pointing out of the applicant is concerned, merely on that recovery also it cannot be said that applicant involved in the present matter. 19. Further, however, it reflects that after the application of the son of the deceased, dead body of the deceased was removed from the graveyard and thereafter, her post mortem was conducted and then it was revealed that she died due to head injury but merely on this ground, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant is the person who committed her murder considering the fact that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record. 20. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 6.9.2024. 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-Kasim, 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 :- 10.1.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad