# Shakeel Ahmad v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2009) 3 ILRA 1194
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-12-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.25273 of 2007
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shakeel-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-41432
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure Section-439Parity-offence under Section 302 IPC-the
role of applicant as well as the coaccused-discharging shots which death
of deceased-post Mortem report two gun
shots injury noticed-Trail in progressconsidering
conviction
of
life
imprisonment of applicant and progress
of Trail-ensure fair Trail-can not be
released on Bail.

Held: Para 6

Considering the facts, circumstances of
the case, submission made by learned
counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the complainant, the allegation against
the applicant and co-accused Sahab is
that
they
discharged
the
shots
consequently, the deceased sustained
injury. According to the post mortem
examination report, the deceased had
sustained two fire arm wounds of entry,
the motive has also been attributed to
the applicant, the applicant is having
criminal
antecedent,
he
is
having
criminal back ground and he has been
convicted by the Sessions Court for life
imprisonment, the trial is in progress,
with having all respect to the order
dated 20.9.2007, passed by another
bench of this Court granting bail to the
co-accused Sahab, I do not feel it proper
to extend the benefit of the parity to the
applicant because he has been convicted
for life imprisonment by the Sessions
Court and is involved in some other
criminal cases also, the benefit of parity
may not be given as a rule. The trial is in
progress to ensure the fair trial, it is not
proper to release the applicant on bail.
The prayer for bail is refused.

## Text

1194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
deposit the same with the State treasury,
otherwise
it
would
amount
unjust
enrichment.

16. This being so, the petitioner is
liable to pay the amount unauthorisedly
collected from the cinema goers as
entertainment tax as per the impugned
demand notice. There is no merit in the
writ petition.

The writ petition is dismissed with
costs of Rs.5,000/-
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.25273
of 2007

Shakeel Ahmad

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri I.M. Khan
Sri Rahul Kumar Tripathi
Sri R.J. Alvi
Sri Shahabuddin

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Deepak Dubey
Sri R.B. Sahai
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure Section-439Parity-offence under Section 302 IPC-the
role of applicant as well as the coaccused-discharging shots which death
of deceased-post Mortem report two gun
shots injury noticed-Trail in progressconsidering
conviction
of
life
imprisonment of applicant and progress
of Trail-ensure fair Trail-can not be
released on Bail.

Held: Para 6

Considering the facts, circumstances of
the case, submission made by learned
counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the complainant, the allegation against
the applicant and co-accused Sahab is
that
they
discharged
the
shots
consequently, the deceased sustained
injury. According to the post mortem
examination report, the deceased had
sustained two fire arm wounds of entry,
the motive has also been attributed to
the applicant, the applicant is having
criminal
antecedent,
he
is
having
criminal back ground and he has been
convicted by the Sessions Court for life
imprisonment, the trial is in progress,
with having all respect to the order
dated 20.9.2007, passed by another
bench of this Court granting bail to the
co-accused Sahab, I do not feel it proper
to extend the benefit of the parity to the
applicant because he has been convicted
for life imprisonment by the Sessions
Court and is involved in some other
criminal cases also, the benefit of parity
may not be given as a rule. The trial is in
progress to ensure the fair trial, it is not
proper to release the applicant on bail.
The prayer for bail is refused.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri I.M. Khan, Sri R.K.
Tripathi, Sri R.J. Alvi and Sri Shahab
Uddin, learned counsel for the applicant,
learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., Sri
Deepak Dubey, Sri R.B. Sahai, learned
counsel for the complainant and perused
the record.

2. This Bail application has been
filed by the applicant Shakeel Ahmad
with a prayer that he may be released on
bail in case crime no. C-6 of 2005, under
3 All] Shakeel Ahmad V. State of U.P.
1195
section
302
I.P.C.,
Police
Station
Khakreru, District Fatehpur.

3. The facts, in brief, of this case are
that FIR has been lodged by Chandra
Kumar on 16.7.2005 at 12.10 p.m. in
respect of the incident which had occurred
on 31.5.2005 at 3.00 p.m., the applicant
and two other co-accused persons are
named as accused in the FIR, the FIR has
been lodged in pursuance of the order
passed by learned Magistrate concerned
in exercise of powers conferred under
section 156(3) C.P.C.. It is alleged that on
31.8.2005, the first informant and his
brother Govardhan were going to meet his
sister, who was married in Fatehpur, at
about 3.00 p.m. when they reached near
village Inayatpur, Shankar dacoit along
with Muskan Miyan, Anwar, Balaghat
Ali, Asif Jama, Mohd. Ahmad, Amaldar
,Zahir, Sahab , Atiq Ahmad, applicant
Shakeel, Naim, Madau, Amin, Satosh and
3 or 4 unknown persons armed with
weapons, met them and at the exhortation
of co-accused Shanker, the applicant an
other co-accused Sahab discharged shots ,
consequently, the brother of the first
informant, namely, Govardhan sustained
gun shot injury, who died on spot. The
firing was done at the fist informant also
but he could not sustain, the injury
because, he ran away to village Inayatpur.
Prior to the alleged incident, Shanker and
other co-accused had committed the
murder of the uncle of the first informant,
namely, Santa and his dead body was
disappeared. According to post mortem
examination report, the deceased had
sustained two fire wounds of entry,
having the exit wound, the applicant
applied for bail before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur who
rejected the same on 9.10.2007.

4. It is contended by learned counsel
for the applicant that FIR is too much
delayed, without having any plausible
explanation. The presence of the first
informant
at
the
alleged
place
of
occurrence is highly doubtful because the
first informant was having equal enmity
as the deceased was having with the
accused persons. The accused persons
were many in numbers, it was not
possible for the first informant to escape
from the place of occurrence as unhurt.
The inquest report of the deceased was
prepared on 1.6.2005 as of unknown
deceased, its information was given to
police station by Atiq Ahmad, the witness
of the inquest report is Ram Gopal also,
who is father of the first informant. Even
then, it was not informed that the
deceased has been murdered by the
applicant and other co-accused persons. It
is also surprising that the dead body was
has not been identified. The accused
persons named in the FIR were having
inter-se enmity. The FIR lodged by coaccused Atiq Ahmad on 16.7.2005 in
respect of the same incident which is not
reliable. It has been lodged in defence.
The co-accused Sahab whose case is
based on the same footing with the case of
the applicant has been released on bail by
another bench of this Court on 20.9.2007
in criminal misc. bail application No.
18179 of 2007.

5. In reply of the above contention,
it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and
counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant
that
according
to
the
prosecution version, the role of causing
injuries has been assigned to the applicant
and co-accused Sahab, the deceased has
sustained two gunshot injuries, prior to
the alleged incident, uncle of the first
informant was also murdered by co-
1196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
accused Shanker and others , that inquest
report was deliberately prepared on the
basis of the information given by the coaccused Atiq Ahmad, the cross version is
not reliable, it has been brought to create
a defence. The co-accused Atiq Ahmad is
father of the applicant, he himself is a
hardened criminal, the applicant and his
father has been convicted for life
imprisonment by the Sessions Judge,
Fatehpur in another case, its appeal is
pending before the high court in which
applicant has been released on bail, after
releasing on bail, he is involved in another
case. The applicant is history sheeter, the
benefit of parity may not be given to the
applicant because the applicant remained
absconded for period of about 2 years. He
is in jail since 10.5.2007, the applicant
was granted bail in case crime no. 146-A
of 2006 under sections 302, 147, 148, 149
I.P.C., police station Khakhreru, District
Fatehpur on 3.9.2007 by another bench of
this Court in criminal misc. application
No. 15073 of 2007, the applicant was
convicted for life on 23.11.2005 under
section 302 I.P.C., he has preferred
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2006, which
is pending. The trial of this case is at the
conclusion stage, therefore, the applicant
may not be released on bail. The benefit
of parity may not be provided to the
applicant.

6.

Considering
the
facts,
circumstances of the case, submission
made by learned counsel for the applicant,
learned
A.G.A.,
learned
counsel
appearing on behalf of the complainant,
the allegation against the applicant and
co-accused Sahab is that they discharged
the shots consequently, the deceased
sustained injury. According to the post
mortem examination report, the deceased
had sustained two fire arm wounds of
entry, the motive has also been attributed
to the applicant, the applicant is having
criminal antecedent, he is having criminal
back ground and he has been convicted by
the Sessions Court for life imprisonment,
the trial is in progress, with having all
respect to the order dated 20.9.2007,
passed by another bench of this Court
granting bail to the co-accused Sahab, I
do not feel it proper to extend the benefit
of the parity to the applicant because he
has been convicted for life imprisonment
by the Sessions Court and is involved in
some other criminal cases also, the benefit
of parity may not be given as a rule. The
trial is in progress to ensure the fair trial,
it is not proper to release the applicant on
bail. The prayer for bail is refused.

7. Accordingly, this application is
rejected.
---------