# Aijaz Ahmad v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 187
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-04-01
- **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aijaz-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-43567
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

4 All. Aijaz Ahmad Vs State Of U.P.
187
constitute any case so as to call for any interference by the learned Commissioner in exercise of its
authority, jurisdiction and power under Section 27(4) of the Ceiling Act.

13. However, the court need not make any observation regarding the merit of the claim of the
petitioners in respect of their tenancy rights. For the said purpose, it has been informed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the execution case is still pending.

14. Now coming to the reasons indicated in the application moved by the petitioners under
Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in moving the application
under Section 27(4) of the Ceiling Act, I may only observe that the application is absolutely cryptic
in nature and does not disclose sufficient cause and reason for the delay of as long as 23 years.

15. For the reasons disclosed hereinabove, the petition deserves to be dismissed which is
hereby dismissed.

16. However, notwithstanding dismissal of this petition, I may make it clear that any
observation or discussion made in this judgment would not be construed to be any reflection on the
merit of the claim of the petitioners on their tenancy rights.

17. There will be no order as to costs.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 8984 Of 2016

Aijaz Ahmad ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for Applicant:
Brijesh Sahai, Khurshed Alam

Counsel for Opposite Party:
G.A.

The applicants has filed the present bail application for seeking release on bail in Case Crime No. 855 of
2015, under Sections 364, 302, 120-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act. The applicant argued that only
tangible evidence available against him is that of the deceased having been abducted by the applicant with
the aid of other co-accused persons. No evidence has been collected by the IO against the applicant regarding
the actual murder of deceased. The respondents opposed the bail application and has drawn the attention of
188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Court to the statements of two witnesses, they are independent witnesses having no grouse against the
applicant.

After looking the nature and gravity of offence, court did not find appropriate case for bail.

Bail of the applicant is rejected.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.)

1. This bail application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case
Crime No. 855 of 2015, under Sections 364, 302, 120-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act,
Police Station Ubhaon, District Ballia.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

3. Perused the record.

4. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the only tangible evidence available against
the applicant is that of the deceased having been abducted by the applicant with the aid of other coaccused persons and subsequently the dead body of the deceased is said to have been recovered.
Further submission is that so far as the actual incident of murder is concerned, no evidence has
been collected by the Investigating Officer as to who committed the murder of the deceased and
how and under what circumstances, the same was committed. There is no witness of the actual
occurrence of the murder. It was further submitted that no valid inference of murder can be
legitimately drawn against the applicant and the maximum charge against the accused can be
levelled under Section 364 I.P.C. Even this allegation of abduction is being denied by the applicant.
It was also pointed out that when the first informant was examined by the Investigating Officer for
the second time, he has denied his being the author of the F.I.R. and, therefore, the prosecution
cannot draw any corroboration from such document which has been rendered an innocuous piece of
paper having no bearing against the accused. Contention is that the alleged motive part of the
evidence is also highly doubtful because the owner of the coaching centre has denied the factum of
any dispute between the children in the coaching centre and the whole controversy involving the
coaching centre has been said by owner of the coaching centre to be nothing except the conspiracy
to defame the coaching centre. Submission is that in the aforesaid circumstances, the case against
the applicant remained unproved, therefore, he should be released on bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has drawn the attention of the Court to
the statements of two witnesses Mantu and Deepak who, according to him, are independent
witnesses having no grouse against the applicant. It has been stated by the witnesses that on
4.8.2015, both of the witnesses were standing along with the deceased where at about 6.30 P.M.,
three accused persons namely Aijaz, Golden and Ajahar, who were previously acquainted with the
witnesses, came up on a motorcycle and after co-accused Ajahar alighted down from the
motorcycle, the present applicant and co- accused Golden intimidated and made the deceased
seated on the motorcycle forcibly. When protest was made, the witnesses were abused and thereafter
4 All. Arjun Prem Kumar Mitra Vs U.P. State M.S.M.E. Facilitation Council & Ors.
189
they whisked away the deceased on the motorcycle from there by force. Further submission is that soon
thereafter at about 7.30 P.M., it was discovered that the aforesaid deceased has been done to death. It was
also submitted that there is no reason available to doubt or look suspiciously to the statements of these
witnesses; and if the aforesaid fact of forcible abduction is proved then it is the onus of the applicant to
explain as to what happened to the deceased after their abduction. The accused were under burden to
discharge the onus that has been saddled on them by way of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The
very fact that thereafter he was found killed, would also be sufficient to raise presumption under Section 114
of the Indian Evidence Act that the accused persons in all probability are the killers of the deceased. Even
otherwise also, reading together the fact of forcible abduction of the deceased by the accused and the
discovery of the dead body of the deceased soon thereafter, would also give rise to the logical and necessary
inference against the applicant for being the author of the crime in absence of any explanation of theaccused.
Submission is that it has not been suggested on behalf of the accused that after the said abduction of the
deceased by the accused, they parted ways and were no more in the company of each other and the murder
might have been perpetrated by someone else. The case of the applicant is of denial and not of explaining the
aforesaid fact. It has also been submitted by learned A.G.A. that so far as the first informant's testimony and
the corroborative value of the F.I.R. is concerned, he never claimed to be a witness of the occurrence and so
even otherwise the version given in the F.I.R. was the version based on the information given by some other
person and was thus having no great evidentiary value. So far as the motive part is concerned, the first
informant has reiterated the same before the Investigating Officer. It was also submitted that it is a normal
public tendency not to embroil oneself in any controversy and therefore it is no surprise that the owner of the
coaching centre, who is a professional, preferred to keep distance and denied the incident related to his
coaching. Contention is that the evidence available is sufficient to make out a strong prima facie case against
the accused and he does not deserve bail.

6. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall
circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail.
Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected.

7. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the
bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.03.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Writ C No.- 10963 Of 2016

Arjun Prem Kumar Mitra ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. State M.S.M.E. Facilitation Council & Ors. ...Respondents