# Shameem Ahmad v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2021) 6 ILRA 373
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-06-21
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No 452 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shameem-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-47102
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 306, 511, 109,
506, 504-application-rejection The dispute
of tenancy between the deceased and his
building owner, co-accused was pending
in the Civil Court, this fact is also known
from
the
evidence
collected
by
the
prosecution-The fact mentioned in the
F.I.R. that owner was insisting on paying
the rent due or vacating the house and
when the deceased refused to do so as
usual citing his financially tight condition,
angered owner, abused in anger and said
that pay the rent otherwise leave the
house or die by burning somewhereImmediately
after
this
incident,
the
deceased did not commit the incident of
setting himself on fire, so that it can be
called
an
abatement
to
suicide-The
incident of self immolation occurred after
five days-A journalist is not expected to
dramatize a sensational and horrifying
incident and make news by putting his
actor in pitiable condition in danger- In
this case, from the statement of the F.I.R.
and the statements of the oral witnesses
which have been recorded during the
investigation, prima facie it is established
that the accused tempted the deceased
that if he would try to commit suicide in
front of the Legislative Assembly building,
by making a video of him, he will telecast
the same on television with matter of
misbehaviour of owner with him-After
this the owner will not be able to evict
him out from the house-the investigator
has seized the video camera and film from
the accused, evidence of independent
witness, an electronic engineer- a man
identified as accused was seen recording
the film of the deceased even prior to this
incident of his self burning, Instead of
saving the grievously burning deceased,
the accused kept on filming it till he was
badly
scorched
-The
suicide
was
committed only after the plan suggested
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the present accused-applicant, Hence
parity can not be claimed.(Para 1 to 30)

B. Factors laid down in various judgment
of Hon'ble the Supreme Court for grant or
refusal of bail are as follows:-

"(i) Whether there was a prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the
accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of accusations;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the
event of a conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or
fleeing, if granted bail;
(v) character, behavior, means, position
and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of repetition of the offence;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail." (Para 28)

The application is rejected. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Sudha Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2021) AIR SC 2149

## Text

6 All. Shameem Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.
373
19 pandemic, 85-90 percent of 15.97 lakh
candidates appeared for NEET (UG)-2020
examination. The NTA released the answer
keys of the NEET (UG)-2020 on 26.9.2020
and the aspirants were able to download the
code-wise official NEET (UG)-2020 question
paper with solutions from the NTA official
website and challenge it as well. Admittedly,
the petitioner did not challenge his answer
key uploaded by the NTA on the official
website. Thereafter, the NTA declared the
final result on 16.10.2020 wherein, he had
secured only 146 marks out of 720.

11. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, we are of the opinion that the
evaluation undertaken by the examining
bodies should not be viewed with suspicion
unless it is prima facie established that it was
not fair or transparent. Such challenge may
only be accepted unless it be well
substantiated and found to rest on a strong
pedestal which is likely to succeed. In the
present matter, the detailed instruction, as
enumerated above, clearly transpires to the
Court that the entire pleading has been set up
on vague and evasive grounds.

12. We do not find any good ground
to interfere in the present writ petition.

13. Consequently, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2021)06ILR A373
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No 452 of 2021

Shameem Ahmad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party
Counsel for the Applicant:
Jitendra Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 306, 511, 109,
506, 504-application-rejection The dispute
of tenancy between the deceased and his
building owner, co-accused was pending
in the Civil Court, this fact is also known
from
the
evidence
collected
by
the
prosecution-The fact mentioned in the
F.I.R. that owner was insisting on paying
the rent due or vacating the house and
when the deceased refused to do so as
usual citing his financially tight condition,
angered owner, abused in anger and said
that pay the rent otherwise leave the
house or die by burning somewhereImmediately
after
this
incident,
the
deceased did not commit the incident of
setting himself on fire, so that it can be
called
an
abatement
to
suicide-The
incident of self immolation occurred after
five days-A journalist is not expected to
dramatize a sensational and horrifying
incident and make news by putting his
actor in pitiable condition in danger- In
this case, from the statement of the F.I.R.
and the statements of the oral witnesses
which have been recorded during the
investigation, prima facie it is established
that the accused tempted the deceased
that if he would try to commit suicide in
front of the Legislative Assembly building,
by making a video of him, he will telecast
the same on television with matter of
misbehaviour of owner with him-After
this the owner will not be able to evict
him out from the house-the investigator
has seized the video camera and film from
the accused, evidence of independent
witness, an electronic engineer- a man
identified as accused was seen recording
the film of the deceased even prior to this
incident of his self burning, Instead of
saving the grievously burning deceased,
the accused kept on filming it till he was
badly
scorched
-The
suicide
was
committed only after the plan suggested
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the present accused-applicant, Hence
parity can not be claimed.(Para 1 to 30)

B. Factors laid down in various judgment
of Hon'ble the Supreme Court for grant or
refusal of bail are as follows:-

"(i) Whether there was a prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the
accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of accusations;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the
event of a conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or
fleeing, if granted bail;
(v) character, behavior, means, position
and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of repetition of the offence;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail." (Para 28)

The application is rejected. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Sudha Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2021) AIR SC 2149

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.)

1. The case is called out through video
conferencing.

2. Learned counsel for the bail-applicant
Sri Jitendra Singh, Advocate and learned
A.G.A. for the State Sri Prem Prakash,
Advocate
are
connected
through
video
conferencing in virtual hearing of the case.

3. The present bail-application is moved
on behalf of accused-applicant- Shameem
Ahmad, who is involved in Case Crime No.209
of 2020, under Sections 306/511/109/506/504
of
I.P.C.,
registered
at
Police
Station
Hussainganj, District Lucknow.

4. Reading over the first information
report lodged on 20.10.2020, learned counsel
for the bail applicant submits the prosecution
case, as emerging from the first information
report and the statements of the witnesses that
the informant-wife of the deceased, who
belongs to Kolkata (West Bengal), resides from
10-12 years as a tenant in House No.155,
Diamond Dairy, Udaiganj, District Lucknow
which is owned by one Zaved Khan, the coaccused. The landlord Zaved Khan wanted
them to vacate the house, therefore, her
husband-the deceased (Surendra Chakraborty)
filed a suit against him for harassing them. On
19.10.2020 in the afternoon, Zaved Khan came
to the house, started abusing her husband in
filthy language and asked him to vacate the
house. When her husband told him his being in
financial trouble and inability to vacate the
house, the landlord Zaved Khan scoldingly
asked him to set himself ablazed and die, if he is
not able to vacate the accommodation.
However, on prayer and request made by the
complainant and other people, the landlord
Zaved Khan went back. Afterwards, her
husband under humiliation became depressed
and so sad that started thinking about suicide.

5. It has been further alleged that
journalists Shamim (the present accusedapplicant) and Naushad Ahmad (the coaccused), contacted her husband (deceased)
and induced him to set himself ablazed into
fire just in front of "Vidhan Sabha
Bhawan" so that they may filmed the
incident by videography and telecast the
same on television. If it happens, the
matter, so as planned will get highlighted
and no one will force him to evict him from
his house. Under the aforesaid inducement,
given by both the accused i.e. the accusedapplicant-Shamim
and
co-accused,
Naushad Ahmad brought her husband (the
deceased) in front of "Vidhan Sabha
Bhawan", where her husband, as induced
and planned, poured oil on him and lit fire,
the accused journalists were making video
6 All. Shameem Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.
375
of the incident. The policemen present
there, ran to save her husband by covering
him with a blanket and took him to a
hospital where he subsequently died on
24.10.2020.

6. Learned counsel for the bailapplicant in the above context argued that
after registering first information report,
police started investigation and the statements
of complainant and witnesses were recorded,
wherein prosecution finds no support.
Learned counsel further submitted that the
applicant and the complainant do not know
each other neither they have any relation nor
he is any beneficiary, if the said house is
vacated, the landlord Zaved Khan will only
be benefited.

7. Learned counsel further submitted
that the name of present accused-applicant
has been arrayed in the column of accused
only when he tried to help the deceased on
the spot of incident with the help of police
subsequently made a video for evidence as he
is a journalist by profession and passing
thereby at the time of incident. Learned
counsel further submitted that it is a settled
principle of law that a passing reference been
made against any person would not be
sufficient to invite the penalty under the
provisions of Section 306 I.P.C.

8. Learned counsel further submitted
that in order to constitute abatement for
suicide, there must be course of conduct or
any such actions of intentionally aiding or
facilitating another person to end life but the
perusal of the F.I.R. does not disclose any
such evidence or allegation which could
invite the penalty under Section 306 of the
I.P.C.

9. Learned counsel further submitted
that in order to constitute abatement,
intentional involvement of a person to aid
or instigate commission of suicide is
imperative and any severance or absence of
any of these constituent would mitigate
against the said indictment.

10. Learned counsel further submitted
that there is no evidence to the effect that
the applicant had indulged in any such
instigation or abatement which could invite
the allegations leveled against the applicant
for abating to commit suicide and as a
matter of fact, no such statement of
deceased has been recorded during his
treatment in hospital nor in front of any
magistrate.

11. Learned counsel further submitted
that the applicant is co-editor of Daily
Hindi Newspaper in Janma Prasaran Times
and RTI Activist and due to this very
reason so many officials were annoyed
with him, therefore, he has falsely been
implicated in the present case.

12. Learned counsel further submitted
that no overt act of abating or any omission
on part of the applicant has been leveled
against the applicant, the applicant is not a
previous convict by any court of law and
for no fault of him, he is languishing in jail
since
21.10.2020.
However,
learned
counsel further submitted that the applicant
is ready to furnish adequate and reliable
sureties for his release and has a permanent
residence, therefore, there is no possibility
of his absconding.

13. It is also argued by learned
counsel for the bail-applicant that the
accused-applicant is entitled to be given
parity as the co-accused, Zaved who was
landlord, has already been granted bail by
the Sessions Court vide order dated
31.10.2020.
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. Protesting the bail plea as argued
by learned counsel for the bail-applicant,
learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that
accused-applicant was in regular touch with
the deceased and he has enticed the
deceased to commit suicide as it is revealed
from the call records of the accusedapplicant, moreover, three mobile phones
are also recovered from him. Learned
A.G.A. further submitted that the deceased
was immediately carried to the Civil
Hospital from where, he was referred to
Sips Hospital but subsequently he died on
24.10.2020 during his treatment.

15. Learned A.G.A. for the State
further submitted that the present accusedapplicant is a person of mischievous
character. On the basis of instructions
received to him, he has submitted that it is
sufficient to show the instinct of the
accused that he will affect adversely the
witnesses and the evidences against him, if
released on bail. Learned A.G.A. further
submitted that even after the lodging of
first
information
report,
nature
and
behavior of the accused-applicant are
enough to dis-entitle him for grant of bail at
this stage.

16. Learned A.G.A. further submitted
that the learned trial court need be directed
to
proceed
expeditiously
so
as
the
complainant's evidences alongwith other
material witness of the fact are recorded so
that the complainant may be saved from
being affected adversely by reason of long
drawn trial.

17. Having heard the arguments of
learned counsel for the accused and learned
A.G.A. for the State, perused the relevant
documents
available
on
record.
The
identity card of the accused has been
presented on behalf of the accused. Thus,
the fact alleged in the F.I.R. that he had
contacted the deceased as a T.V. journalist
is an accepted fact.

18. The dispute of tenancy between
the deceased and his building owner, Zaved
was pending in the Civil Court, this fact is
also known from the evidence collected by
the prosecution. The fact mentioned in the
F.I.R. that Zaved was insisting on paying
the rent due or vacating the house and
when the deceased refused to do so as usual
citing his financially tight condition,
angered Zaved, abused in anger and said
that pay the rent otherwise leave the house
or die by burning somewhere. Immediately
after this incident, the deceased did not
commit the incident of setting himself on
fire, so that it can be called an abatement to
suicide. The incident of self immolation
occurred after five days on 24.10.2020.

19. The journalist keeps an eye on the
anticipated or sudden events happening in
the society and brings them to the
information of all the people through
various news media without any tampering,
this is his business.

20. A journalist is not expected to
dramatize a sensational and horrifying
incident and make news by putting his
actor in pitiable condition in danger of
death.

21. In this case, from the statement of
the F.I.R. and the statements of the oral
witnesses which have been recorded during
the
investigation,
prima
facie
it
is
established that the accused tempted the
deceased that if he would try to commit
suicide in front of the Legislative Assembly
building, by making a video of him, he will
telecast the same on television with matter
of misbehavior of Zaved with him. After
6 All. Shameem Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.
377
this Zaved will not be able to evict him out
from the house.

22. During the investigation as
electronic evidence, the investigator has
seized the video camera and film from the
accused, evidence of independent witness, an
electronic engineer named Kuldeep Singh
posted in control room of Secretariat stated
on the basis of C.C.T.V. installed on the gate
no.4, given statement which is annexure no.7
to the counter affidavit, which discloses,
according to the plan, the deceased reached in
front of the Legislative Assembly building in
front of the gate no.3, stood at middle of the
road, put oil on himself and set it on fire,
meanwhile, a man identified as accused was
seen recording the film of the deceased even
prior to this incident of his self burning.
Instead of saving the grievously burning
deceased, the accused kept on filming it till
he was badly scorched. Policemen were also
seen trying to rescue the deceased from
burning in the confiscated film.

23. In these evidences, the case of the
prosecution against the accused is prima facie
established that he told the deceased, living in
mental
and
financial
distress,
to
the
temptation and plan to get rid of them. He
was present with the deceased at the scene of
the incident and filming it. Therefore, the
claim of his innocence by the accused is
prima facie not established.

24. So far as the grant of bail to the coaccused, Zaved is concerned, the benefit of
parity could not be given in the case of
present accused-applicant because in case of
Zaved, only a passing remark to go and die
by burning was made on 19.10.2020. The
deceased has not committed suicide in
pursuance of and under the effect of that
remark. In case of Zaved, no overt act in
furtherance of his inducement, is done to
facilitate or to compel the deceased to
commit suicide. The suicide was committed
on 24.10.2020, only after the plan suggested
by the present accused-applicant.

25. So far as the personal liberty of
the accused and his right to be released on
bail is concerned, it is not valid in violation
or in breach of fundamental right of the
other party. The complainant, who is
already
mentally
distressed
by
her
husband's financial condition, who further
committed suicide under the influence of
the accused, if the accused is made free,
she would be in danger. She is the main
witness in the case. For fair trial, the
complainant would need a completely fearfree environment as a witness. She has the
right to have a fair trial of the matter.

26. The criminal details of the
accused are given in the counter affidavit,
which is as follows:-

"1. Case Crime No.171/1999, under
Sections 504, 506 and 427 of I.P.C.
registered at Police Station Cantt., District
Lucknow.

2. Case Crime No.478/1999, under
Sections 3/25 of Arms Act, registered at
Police
Station
Mahanagar,
District
Lucknow.

3. Case Crime No.21/2000, under
Sections 160 of I.P.C., registered at Police
Station Hussainganj, District Lucknow.

4. Case Crime No.22/2000, under
Sections 4/25 of Arms Act, registered at
Police
Station
Hussainganj,
District
Lucknow.

5. Case Crime No.27/2000, under
GOONDAS Act, registered at Police
Station Hussainganj, District Lucknow.

6. Case Crime No.494/2000, under
Section 110 of G. Act, registered at Police
Station Hussainganj, District Lucknow.
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. Case Crime No.86/2004, under
Section 110 of G. Act, registered at Police
Station Hussainganj, District Lucknow.

8. Case Crime No.117/2010, under
Section 110 of G. Act, registered at Police
Station Hussainganj, District Lucknow.

9. Case Crime No.275/2010, under
Section 110 of G. Act, registered at Police
Station Hussainganj, District Lucknow.

10. Case Crime No.330/2013, under
Sections 323, 504, 427 of I.P.C., registered at
Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow.

11. Case Crime No.228/2014, under
Sections 386, 506 of I.P.C., registered at
Police Station Wazirganj, District Lucknow."

27. These criminal details also cast
doubt on him that he will take undue
advantage of his immunity and his status on
bail.

28. Factors laid down in various
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court for
grant or refusal of bail are as follows:-

"(i) Whether there was a prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the
accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of accusations;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the
event of a conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding
or fleeing, if granted bail;

(v) character, behavior, means, position
and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of repetition of the
offence;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail."

29. Hon'ble the Supreme Court
further in the case of Sudha Singh Vs. The
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in
AIR 2021 SC 2149 held as follows:-

"12. There is no doubt that liberty is
important, even that of a person charged with
crime but it is important for the courts to
recognise the potential threat to the life and
liberty of victims/witnesses, if such accused is
released on bail."

30. The application of the bail moved on
behalf of accused-applicant on the basis of
above discussions is rejected.

31. The accused-applicant also has right
of speedy trial. It is informed by learned
A.G.A., charge sheet has already been
submitted before the trial court. The officers
entrusted with the prosecution i.e. Sri Manoj
Tripathi, D.G.C. (Criminal), Lucknow and Sri
Surya Bhan, Joint Director (Prosecution),
Lucknow is directed to ensure the prosecution
witness before the trial court expeditiously and
get them examined so that the trial court may be
able to decide the case expeditiously within a
prescribed period of one year.

32. Learned trial court below is also
directed to expeditiously proceed with the trial
and conclude the same within a reasonable
period of one year from the date, certified copy
of the order is placed before it. In deciding the
case on merit, the trial court need not to be
swayed away with any observation made by
this Court in the order.

33. Learned Senior Registrar is directed to
communicate the order of the Court with regard
to the expeditious disposal to both, the officers
of the police department and the trial court also.

34. The present accused-applicant
may have right to avail remedy of bail
afresh after expiry of aforesaid period.
----------
6 All. Shabbir Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
379
(2021)06ILR A379
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

Bail No. 1012 of 2021

Shabbir ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Anil Kumar Srivastava, Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Bail - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 376 & 506
, The Protection of Children From Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Section 3/4, Section
29 - presumption as to certain offences,
Section 30 - Presumption of culpable
homicide
,
The
Scheduled
Castes
/Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
from
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(5) ,
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Sections 161 & 164 .

Penetrative offence under POCSO Act against
accused-applicant - age of victim below 16 years
- Statements of victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
and 164 Cr.P.C. are intact ,believable and
reliable - No explanation of the incident made in
the affidavit in support of bail-application .

HELD:-Section 29 of the POCSO Act makes a
presumption
of
the
offence,
since
the
allegations made by the victim girl remains
unrebutted,
therefore,
prima
facie
the
presumption of commission of offence by the
present accused-applicant is constituted. Victim
is a child and she might be exposed to the
threat of life and living as well as undue
pressure in the course of trial as the accused is
also a native of the same locality. Accusedapplicant is capable of tampering the evidences
and affect the witness adversely. (Para - 15,16)
Bail application rejected. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar
Srivastav, J.)

1. The case is called out through
video conferencing.

2. Learned counsel for the bailapplicant Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava,
Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State
Sri Prem Prakash, Advocate are connected
through video conferencing in virtual
hearing of the case.

3. The present bail-application is
moved on behalf of accused-applicant-
Shabbir, who is involved in Case Crime
No.209 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366,
376, 506 of I.P.C., Section 3/4 of POCSO
Act and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act,
registered at Police Station Motigarpur,
District Sultanpur.

4. Reading over the first information
report lodged on 13.07.2020, learned
counsel for the bail applicant submits the
prosecution case, as emerging from the first
information report and the statements of the
witnesses
is
that,
according
to
the
complaint by the informant mother of the
minor victim, one Udairaj, a neighbour boy
who was on talking terms with her minor
daughter,
aged
about
16
years,
on
03.07.2020 enticed her to come near a tubewell of one Ashok Singh alongwith her
Adhaar Card, Bank Passbook and some
cash. The victim met with Udairaj as
suggested by him alongwith her Adhaar
Card,
Bank
Passbook
and
cash
of
Rs.19,000/-. Udairaj took all the cash and
papers from the victim and asked her to go
alongwith the accused-applicant-Shabbir on
his motorcycle with a promise of marrying
with her. The present accused-applicant