Sajid vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

Counter affidavit has been filed today by learned counsel for the first informant, which is taken on record. Rejoinder affidavit to the said counter affidavit has also been filed today by learned counsel for the applicant which is also taken on record.

Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri M.J. Akhtar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned A.G.A. 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-Sajid, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.281 of 2015 (S.T. No.581 of 2015), u/s 452, 307, 302, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Seohara, district Bijnor.

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that three persons including the applicant being Aman and Parvez along with one unknown person has been named in the first information report as accused persons and general and common role has been assigned to all the accused persons of assaulting Mohd. Azam, Km. Sauphia and the first informant Smt. Shaheen Parveen with saria, lathi, danda and sharp-edged weapon as a result of which Mohd. Azam received injuries and died. Km. Sauphia and Smt. Shaheen Parveen also received injuries and even one more person Junaid is said to have received injuries by the accused persons but the same is not mentioned in the first information report. The deceased died as a result of injury received on his head and cervical region which was opined to be sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. Subsequently in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the first informant Smt. Shaheen Parveen, the applicant is stated to be armed with thick saria and has been stated to have assaulted the deceased on his head, Km. Sauphia in her statement stated that the applicant was armed with a thick rod like saria has been stated to have assaulted the deceased and further injured Junaid has assigned the applicant to be armed with an iron pipe from which he is said to have assaulted the deceased, the same is an afterthought and just in order to give the case a different colour. The trial in the present case under progress in which the witnesses of fact have been examined and the testimony of the Investigating Officer and some of the formal witnesses is remaining and as such there are no chances of the applicant tempering with evidence or threatening the witnesses. It is further argued that co-accused Sarfaraz and Parvez Alam have been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court on 30.3.2018 and 30.4.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.16497 of 2016 and 21048 of 2018. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para no.17 of the affidavit and is in jail since 16.7.2015.

Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and have placed the statement of Km. Sauphia which was recorded before the trial court wherein she was produced as P.W.2 and has placed the same to demonstrate that she has stated that she had mentioned the weapon and active role of the applicant in the first information report and had stated same to the Investigating Officer while being interrogated but as to how the same has not been mentioned therein, she does not know. It is further argued that it is the handiwork of the Investigating Officer and as such the same need not be considered as a fact left out by the prosecution right from its initial stage. It is further argued that the applicant though has pleaded to be in jail since 16.7.2019 but he himself is responsible for the same as he has moved the bail application as late as being in the year 2019 before the court below which was rejected on 7.3.2019 and then has approached this Court, as such the applicant himself remained silent for a good period of four years and had not agitated for bail before any court of law and as such had remained in jail since the said period. In so far as the case of the co-accused persons are concerned, the same has a distinction as in the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the first informant and the other two injured persons the applicant has been assigned specific role of assaulting the deceased by the weapon for which the injuries get corroborated as is apparent from the postmortem examination. The nature of the incident was such that the specific description of the role assigned to the accused persons could not have come in the first information report and as such the same was missing. Learned AGA also opposed the prayer for bail and adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant. Learned counsel for the first informant has placed reliance on para no.16 of the counter affidavit and stated that the applicant is involved in Case Crime No.60 of 2010 u/s 147, 307, 452, 324, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Seohara, district Bijnor to which learned counsel for the applicant has stated that in para no.10 of the rejoinder affidavit while replying to paragraph no.16 of the counter affidavit specifically stated that the applicant is not involved in any case and is not a man of criminal nature and he has further placed para no.9 of the counter affidavit of the State in which a reply to para no.17 of the affidavit in support of the bail application has been given wherein the contents of para no.17 have not been disputed but is only stated that the applicant is a man of criminal nature and as such it is argued that the applicant has no criminal history.

It is further argued that trial in the present case has been expedited by coordinate Benches of this Court vide order dated 30.3.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16497 of 2016 Sarfaraz Vs. State of U.P. and further vide order dated 30.4.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.21048 of 2018 Parvez Alam Vs. State of U.P.

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant-Sajid be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

The bail application is allowed.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is directed to strictly comply with the order passed by coordinate Benches of this Court vide order dated 30.3.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16497 of 2016 Sarfaraz Vs. State of U.P. and further vide order dated 30.4.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.21048 of 2018 Parvez Alam Vs. State of U.P.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.