# Wasi Ahmad (In Jail) v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 18
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19456 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/wasi-ahmad-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46912
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A.G.A.,
Sri
Nayab
Ahmad
Khan,
Sri
Sharique Ahmed, Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, Sri
Sumit Kumar Srivastava

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860Sections
147,148,
149,
302,
504application-rejection-
Honour
killingdeath of the deceased due to ante-mortem
firearm injuries-number of injuries found
on the dead bodies in the post-mortem is
in support of FIR version in terms and
manner (indiscriminate firing) of murderaccused trying to confuse the criminal
justice process as 3 years after filing of
charge-sheet,
they
kept
away
from
criminal process and 4 others accused are
still absconding-For such harsh criminals
there cannot be any room for sympathychargesheeted
persons
are
active
members of the gang of Ateeq and they
have long criminal history.(Para 1 to 18)

B.
Bail
jurisdiction
is
not
exercised
mechanically, it has to be considered
keeping in view the gravity of offence, the
manner of the commission of offence, its
impact on society and the antecedent of
the individual accused, the likelihood of
his tampering are relevant considerations.
For a serious charge where two murders
have been committed by indiscriminate
firing, eyewitness have seen the incident
and prompt and named FIR has been
lodged, merely because some accused
persons,
against
whom
charge-sheets
have been filed after further investigation
which took place after filing of chargesheet
against
the
present
accused
applicants and who were not named in
FIR, have been granted bail earlier, the
present accused cannot get benefit of the
principle of parity. (Para 10)

The Bail Application is rejected. (E-5)

## Text

18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the courts to discourage, deprecate and
shall not become a party to such type of
nefarious design and motivated friendship
between the rival parties. If these affidavits
are accepted, and consequently prosecution
against the wrongdoers are abandoned, it
would lead to far-reaching adverse impact
over the society.

Yet another legal aspect of the issue
is initiation of criminal prosecution after
lodging of the FIR. The 'State' is a prosecutor
whereas informant and others are only to
assist their prosecutor. Thus, without taking
the prosecutor into confidence, the informant
on his own, cannot absolve the accused
persons from their guilt that too outside the
Court with motive. This would amount to the
mockery of criminal judicial dispensation
system and has to be discouraged, deprecated
by all means and might.

[18] This Court is not at all inclined to
accept these affidavits Annexure-8 sworn by
Ram Pratap Kori, Prema Devi and Umesh
Kumar. This Court directs to the court
concerned having competent jurisdiction to
hold in-depth probe into the matter engaging
some senior police officer at least of a C.O. rank
to verify and explore, whether the prosecution
story narrated by the informant in the FIR, is
true and correct OR the averements made and
signed by the aforesaid persons in their
respective affidavits are correct? If any such
"deal" is there between them, then what was the
monetary considerations were passed? This
probe must conclude within fifteen days from
the release of the applicants on bail and
thereafter, the court concerned, if some material
are surfaced against the informant, his wife and
son, should register miscellaneous case against
the erring persons under Section 211 IPC or
under any other relevant provisions of IPC after
strictly adhering due process of law prescribed
in Code of Criminal Procedure in this regard.
This miscellaneous criminal proceeding must
conclude within six months from the date of the
registration.

[19] If the legislation in its wisdom has
enacted the stringent action under Section 304B IPC to deal with such heinous offences and
has prescribed the serious punishment against
the wrongdoers, then on the same breath, no
one is permitted to give a hoax call by initiating
a proceeding and in the midst of the said
proceeding, abandon the same for his ulterior
motive or monetary gains.

[20] Let copy of this order be transmitted
to the learned Sessions Judge, Banda with the
expectation that he would monitor the abovesaid miscellaneous proceeding against the
informant Ram Pratap Kori, his wife Prema
Devi and son Umesh Kumar to its logical
conclusion within time specified.

[21] With the above observations, the
present bail application stands allowed against
the named accused persons.
----------
(2021)03ILR A18
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19456 of
2019
connected with
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23928 of
2019
connected with
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29678 of
2019

Wasi Ahmad ...Applicant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
3 All. Wasi Ahmad Vs. State of U:P. & Anr.
19
Counsel for the Applicant:
Archna Hans, Sri Shashank Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.,
Sri
Nayab
Ahmad
Khan,
Sri
Sharique Ahmed, Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, Sri
Sumit Kumar Srivastava

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860Sections
147,148,
149,
302,
504application-rejection-
Honour
killingdeath of the deceased due to ante-mortem
firearm injuries-number of injuries found
on the dead bodies in the post-mortem is
in support of FIR version in terms and
manner (indiscriminate firing) of murderaccused trying to confuse the criminal
justice process as 3 years after filing of
charge-sheet,
they
kept
away
from
criminal process and 4 others accused are
still absconding-For such harsh criminals
there cannot be any room for sympathychargesheeted
persons
are
active
members of the gang of Ateeq and they
have long criminal history.(Para 1 to 18)

B.
Bail
jurisdiction
is
not
exercised
mechanically, it has to be considered
keeping in view the gravity of offence, the
manner of the commission of offence, its
impact on society and the antecedent of
the individual accused, the likelihood of
his tampering are relevant considerations.
For a serious charge where two murders
have been committed by indiscriminate
firing, eyewitness have seen the incident
and prompt and named FIR has been
lodged, merely because some accused
persons,
against
whom
charge-sheets
have been filed after further investigation
which took place after filing of chargesheet
against
the
present
accused
applicants and who were not named in
FIR, have been granted bail earlier, the
present accused cannot get benefit of the
principle of parity. (Para 10)

The Bail Application is rejected. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. All the three bail applications have
been arising out of same Case Crime
Number and are being disposed of by a
common order.

2. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Archana
Hans & Praveen Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for the accused applicants Wasi
Ahmad and Sabir, Shri G.S. Chaturvedi,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Shashank Mishra, learned counsel for the
applicant Zaabir Hussain, Shri Satish
Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel
for the intervenor, Sri Sumit Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
informant and learned AGA for the State
and perused the record.

3. These bail applications have been
given by the accused applicants Wasi
Ahmad, Sabir and Zaabir Hussain in
Criminal Case No. 5100 of 2016, arising
out of Case Crime No. 634 of 2015, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 IPC, PS -
Dhoomanganj,
District
-
Allahabad
(Prayagraj)

4. Submission of the learned Senior
Advocate/ Counsel for the applicants is that
the accused applicants are in jail from more
than 22 months and charge-sheet has
already been filed against the accused
applicants and 4 more accused persons
under
aforesaid
sections.
Further
submission is that, in respect of the
incident, informant Abid lodged an FIR
making allegation that on 25.09.2015 at
8:30 PM the incident took place and the
FIR has been lodged at 9:30 PM on the
same date. The accused applicants with
other four are named accused persons in the
FIR. Out of 7 accused, 3 accused persons
have given these bail applications and the
20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
others are still absconding. The allegation
is that the deceased Alkana and her driver
Surjeet were going and Surjeet was driving
the Fortuner Car to take her to her village.
Accused persons Sabir, Wasi Ahamad,
Maqsood Ahamad, Kammu, Jabir, Tauseef
and Intekhab Alam came and opened fire
by their rifles and killed them. The
informant Abid who was going in another
car behind the car of the deceased with
Asif, Munna and Farhan, stopped and
stepped down from his car, concealed
themselves in the nearby field and saw the
whole incident in the headlights of the car.
Hearing the sound of firing, nearby
villagers reached there raising their voice,
whereupon
the
accused
persons,
threatening and firing, escaped from the
place. Earlier also they had threatened the
deceased with dire consequences. The
matter was investigated by police and
charge-sheet was submitted on 07.01.2016
on which cognizance was also taken by the
court below on 03.05.2016.

5. One Asiya Begam gave application
dated 18.06.2016, the IG, UP, finding certain
shortcomings in the investigation, issued a
letter to SSP, Allahabad indicating certain
points which were needed to be further
investigated, whereupon, on 21.07.2016,
SSP
Allahabad
directed
for
further
investigation by Crime Branch. During the
further investigation, one Julficar @ Tota
was
arrested
who
made
confessional
statement giving details of the incident and
from him one pistol was also recovered.
After further investigation, charge-sheet
dated 16.11.2017 was submitted against
accused Akbar alone in which it was
mentioned that investigation is continuing.
Subsequently on 01.01.2018, an another
charge-sheet against Abid, Mazid, Azaz,
Javed, Abubakar, Sheru, Munna, Farhan,
Aashif, Pappu and Faisal was filed.

6. Submission of the learned Senior
counsel is that in the subsequently filed
charge-sheet, newly incorporated accused
persons such as Azaz Akhtar, Javed, Munne
@ Munna, Mazid, Pappu @ Imtiyaz, Abu
Bakar, Faisal, Akbar, Sheru, Asif, Julficar @
Tota have been granted bail by the coordinate
Benches of this Court and some of the bail
orders are enclosed with the bail applications.
The learned Senior counsel has submitted
that by letter dated 11.12.2015, SSP,
Allahabad, in response to a government letter
dated 10.11.2015, conveyed no objection and
recommended
for
transfer
to
and
investigation by CBCID indicating that
Inspector
Mahendra
Singh
Dev
was
investigating into the offence and he was in
agreement with the opinion of the IO. It is not
clear
whether
the
investigation
was
transferred to CBCID or not, as the chargesheet dated 7.1.2016 was submitted by
Inspector
Mahendra
Singh
Dev.
Subsequently, when further investigation by
Crime Branch was directed by SSP vide order
dated 21.7.2016, the charge-sheet was
already filed and cognizance by the court
below was taken.

7. The Crime Branch started further
investigation, reconstructed the crime scene
in presence and on saying of the first
informant and the result was found contrary
to the FIR version. It has also been
submitted that in view of the site map,
when the eyewitness saw the accused
applicants committing the offence, they
were 40 feets away from the place and they
further went to 20 feets away in the field.
The incident took place in the night, and
without disclosing the source of light, it
cannot be believed that they saw the
accused persons and identified them.
Moreover, during investigation, although,
sign and damage caused to the car by bullet
shot was found, yet it could not be shown
3 All. Wasi Ahmad Vs. State of U:P. & Anr.
21
that any bullet got penetrated into the car
and, therefore, the manner of assault is
highly doubtful. It has been also submitted
that the widow of the deceased Surjeet
moved to the High Court for transferring
the investigation to the CBI but the prayer
was not accepted by the High Court and a
simple direction was passed for fair
investigation. It has been also submitted
that the SSP, Allahabad ordered for further
investigation under section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
and that order was never challenged. The
charge-sheet was submitted against the
informant and others on the basis of
statement of the widow and other witnesses
recorded by the Investigating Officer. He
submits that the incident is honour killing
as both the deceased were in relationship. It
has
been
also
submitted
that
the
subsequently
charge-sheeted
accused
persons are active members of the gang of
Ateeq and they have long criminal history.
The accused applicants were implicated
and charge-sheeted at the instance of the
said Mafia don who happened to be very
influential, politically and otherwise.

8. It has been also submitted that the
ballistic report shows that different bores of
weapon were used in causing fire arm
injuries
and
blackening
was
present
whereas it has been no where stated that the
accused persons fired from a close range. It
has been also submitted that the location of
the applicants at the relevant time was not
found around the location of crime in view
of the CDR collected by the IO and the
accused persons whose locations were
found near the spot and from whom
weapon of assault was recovered have
already
been
granted
bail.
Further
submission
is
that
a
report
dated
17.11.2017 was submitted to CJM by SO,
Dhoomanganj Nagesh Kumar Singh and he
has mentioned that the named accused
persons are not wanted in the case and in
further investigation, sufficient evidence
has been found against informant Abid and
others. Accused applicant Wasi has no
criminal history and other two against
whom criminal history has been shown
have been released on bail in all those
cases. The other four accused persons are
still absconding and the applicants are in
jail from the last about two years. The case
is not committed to sessions and there is no
possibility of trial to commence and
dispose of in near future. The investigation
has been completed by the Officers of
Crime Branch on the basis of order passed
by Superintendent of Police and chargesheet has been submitted against the
informant and others and they have been
released on bail. Therefore, on the basis of
parity also, the applicants are entitled to be
released on bail.

9. Learned GA, learned counsel for
the informant and learned Senior Advocate
for the intervener have vehemently opposed
the bail applications and have submitted
that prompt and named FIR has been
lodged. It is a high profile well planned
murder case in which two persons have lost
their life in indiscriminate firing and in
such cases liberal approach cannot be
adopted in granting bail. Submission of
learned Senior Advocate is that the
subsequent investigation is not legal as the
charge-sheet filed against the accused
applicants
was
earlier
in
time
and
cognizance was already taken by court
below and without obtaining any order
from the concerned court for further
investigation, no further investigation could
be conducted. He has submitted that the
second set accused persons have been
falsely implicated because of the influence
of
Mafia
don
Ateeq.
The
second
submission is that the accused applicants
22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
who are three in numbers have their long
criminal history. Further submission is that
in the incident Alkama died and she
sustained 17 gun shot injuries whereas
Surjeet also died and he had sustained 13
gun shot injuries and it indicates how
horrendously the deceased persons were
killed and the accused persons ensured the
death by indiscriminate firing. Further
submission is that the accused applicants
have tendency of running away from
judicial process as the charge-sheet was
submitted
after
concluding
the
investigation against them in absconding
and they remained absconding for almost
three years and still the remaining 4
accused persons who have been chargesheeted have not put in their appearance
and are still absconding, despite the fact
that
the
accused
persons
filed
miscellaneous applications under sections
482 CrPC and Miscellaneous Application
No. 11516 of 2018 filed by Maqsood
Ahamad & 2 others was dismissed vide
order
dated
12.7.2018,
Miscellaneous
Application No. 28407 of 2018 filed by
Tausif and another was dismissed vide
order dated 18.8.2018 and Miscellaneous
Application No. 13850 of 2019 filed by
Qammo (Qamrul Hasan) was dismissed
vide order dated 11.4.2019. Therefore, it
has been submitted that where the accused
applicants
and
their
associates
have
tendency of tampering with the judicial
process by absconding, in such case the
bail should not be granted. In respect of
parity, it has been submitted that the
accused persons whose names have been
mentioned in the subsequent charge-sheet
have been granted bail because of peculiar
situation as they were not named in the FIR
and one of them was the first informant.
Charge-sheet was already filed against the
accused applicants and their associates
much prior to the direction for further
investigation. They are named in the FIR
which was lodged very promptly and
therefore, it has been submitted that the
prayer of parity will not come to help such
accused persons.

10. Upon hearing the submissions
made from both sides and after giving a
thoughtful consideration to the arguments,
it is clear that the accused applicants have
laid
emphasis,
firstly,
on
parity
as
subsequently
charge-sheeted
accused
persons for the aforesaid offences have
been granted bail by the Co-ordinate
Benches of this Court. The law of parity is
a principle of equality and it requires that
identically placed accused should be given
benefit of parity in releasing on bail. It is
settled law that parity is one of the
consideration in allowing bail application
but on the ground of parity alone, an
accused cannot be released on bail, nor
there can be such hard and fast rule. Bail
jurisdiction is not exercised mechanically
and each case has to be considered on its
own factual matrix keeping in view the
gravity of offence, the manner of the
commission of the offence, its impact on
society and the antecedent of the individual
accused. Thus nature of the offence and its
gravity and seriousness ; character of the
evidence; circumstances peculiar to the
accused; likelihood of the accused fleeing
from judicial process; the impact of release
on the witnesses, its impact on the society;
and likelihood of his tampering are relevant
considerations in bail matters. For a serious
charge where two murders have been
committed
by
indiscriminate
firing;
eyewitnesses have seen the incident and
prompt and named FIR has been lodged;
merely because some accused persons,
against whom charge-sheets have been
filed after further investigation which took
place after filing of charge-sheet against the
3 All. Wasi Ahmad Vs. State of U:P. & Anr.
23
present accused applicants and who were
not named in FIR, have been granted bail
earlier, the present accused applicants
cannot get benefit of the principle of parity.
The case of the accused applicants is
certainly different if considered in its
entirety. Even this cannot be a ground for
releasing them on bail that they are in jail
and there is no possibility of trial being
concluded very soon. Two of the accused
applicants have a long criminal history
also. The interesting part is that both the
sides claim in writing against each other
that they have backing of Mafia don Ateeq.

11. The learned Senior Advocate for the
intervener has argued that when charge-sheet
was already filed and cognizance was taken
by court below, there was no occasion for the
police authorities to direct for further
investigation without approval of court below
and further investigation and filing of chargesheet against the informant side is illegal.
This is not a fact which can be considered at
present at the time of disposal of the bail
application. Moreover, when the charge-sheet
has been filed and cognizance has been taken
by the court below, this argument has lost its
significance. Similarly, the argument of the
learned Senior Advocate and learned counsel
for the applicants with regards to manner of
assault, weapon used and no possibility of
witnesses and informant having seen the
incident from distance in the night and the
differences in view of ballistic and forensic
reports, cannot be looked into thoroughly and
in microscopic details during disposal of bail
application. That is an area which can only be
examined by the trial court. Again, the
argument that the case of the applicants is on
much better footing as the CDR shows the
presence at relevant time around spot and
murder weapons have been recovered from
concealed places from the accused persons
who have been granted bail and nothing
incriminatory
has
been
recovered
the
applicants, this cannot be determined at this
stage. It is an intricate area to be examined
during trial.

12. The accused applicants are named
in FIR which has been lodged promptly. In
the incident, two persons, one driver and
other sitting on back seat sustained firearm
injuries in indiscriminate firing and died. The
sign of gunshots have been found on the
front, bonnet, glass and door and so far as the
argument that no bullet was found having
penetrated inside to hit the deceased persons
is concerned, there is nothing on record in
which it has been said that no bullet
penetrated inside the car. This is an aspect on
which a finding at this stage is neither
warranted nor can be given.

13. The firearm injuries caused to the
deceased persons also show that it was
ensured that, in all certainty, the death must
result by indiscriminate firing. A glance at
the post-mortem report reveals this fact.
Deceased Alkana sustained 17 injuries
which include several firearm entry and
exit wound. From the typed copy of postmortem report which has been filed by the
applicants shows following injuries on the
dead body-

1. Cutting injury seen in right
side hand medial side 8 cm x 5 cm with
fracture of middle, ring finger and little
finger.

2. Entry wound present in right
lateral side elbow 2 cm x 4 cm in size,
injury is corresponding with wound of exit.

3. Present on the right medial
side of elbow size 10 cm x 8 cm with
fracture of both bone margins inverted.

4. Entry wound present in right
side arm lateral side size 1.5 cm x 1⁄2 cm,
inverted margins 13 cm below the shoulder
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
tip which is communicating with wound of
exit no 5.

5. Exit wound present on right
arm medial side 14 cm x 4.5 cm, margins
inverted, small piece of metal part
recovered.

6. Right side breast show 15 cm x 7
cm wound (illegible) inverted margins.

7. Entry wound 1 cm x 1 cm left
back of forearm 10 cm above wrist and 4 cm
below the entry wound (illegible) present on
cutting pieces of metal found and preserved.

8. Entry wound present in left
lateral side of thighs with inverted margins
with blackening around the wound 2.5 cm x 4
cm in size, it is communicating with wound of
exit.

9. On medial side of thigh, size 4
cm x 3 cm margins inverted, 11 cm from
knees.

10. Right thigh medial side slant
entry wound size 9 cm x 6 cm, 15 cm below
(illegible) which is communicating exit
wound 11.

11. 17 cm below the (illegible) 12
cm x 7 cm.

12. Wound of entry present in the
back (illegible) (illegible) (illegible) size 1 cm
x 1.5 cm, inverted margins with blackening.

13. Abrasion present on the stems 4
cm below the stem of neck, 1 cm x 1 cm in
size.

14. Abrasion present on the
interior side of the (illegible) 3 cm left to
medial size 1 cm x 0.5 cm.

15. Multiple abrasion present on
the lip interior side (illegible) size 6 cm x 4
cm, 6 cm above knees.

16. Entry wound present on the left
lateral side of knees size 1 cm x 1.5 cm
inverted margins communicating with wound
of exit.

17. Size 6 cm x cm (illegible) left
avial medial side of knees margins
inverted..... of injury no. 12 is common with
right side back wound on (illegible).

14. The post-mortem report of
deceased Surjeet reveals following injuries
on the dead body-

1. Firearm wound of entry 1.5 cm
x 01 cm x muscle deep present on right
forearm 06 cm below elbow. Blackening
present. Communicating to injury no. 2.
Blackening present, margins inverted.

2. Firearm wound of exit 02 cm x
02 cm x muscle deep present over right
forearm 03 cm above injury no 1 and
communicating to injury no. 1 on probing
(illegible).

3. A firearm cutter injury 15 cm x
10 cm x muscle and bone deep on posterior
aspect of right elbow. Blackening present,
bone fractured.

4. A firearm wound of entry 02
cm x 1.5 cm communicating to (5) present
on left upper abdomen 15 cm above
umbilicus at 11'O clock position 05 cm
from mid line. Blackening present. Margin
inverted.

5. A firearm wound of exit 14 cm
x 6 cm x muscle deep communicating to
injury no. (4).

6. A firearm wound of entry 1.5
cm x 1.5 cm x communicating to injury no.
(7), just above left elbow. Blackening
present. Margins inverted.

7. A firearm wound of exit 12 cm
x 28 cm communicating to (6), underlying
bone fracture.

8. A firearm wound of entry 2.5
cm x 02 cm x communicating to (9) present
on right side chest 7 cm above nipple at
10'O clock position. Blackening present.

9. A firearm wound of exit 11 cm
x 08 cm x communicating to (8). Margins
inverted.
3 All. Wasi Ahmad Vs. State of U:P. & Anr.
25

10. A wound of entry 03 cm x
02 cm x communicating to (11) present
on right side chest 02 cm below nipple at
5'O clock position. Blackening present.

11. A firearm wound of exit 03
cm x 02 cm communicating to (10)
present on back.

12. A firearm wound of entry 01
cm x 01 cm on left scapula region,
blackening present.

13. A firearm wound of exit 03
cm x 02 cm x communicating to (12)
present on right upper chest.

15. In the opinion of doctor, death
of both the deceased must have occurred
about 3⁄4 days prior to the time of postmortem
because
of
shock
and
haemorrhage due to ante-mortem firearm
injuries.
Post-mortem
of
deceased
Surjeet took place at 2 PM and of
deceased
Alkana
at
2.45
PM
on
26.9.2015 and it corroborates the time of
incident which is 8.30 PM on 25.9.2015.

16. The number of injuries found
on the dead bodies in the post-mortem is
in support of FIR version in terms of
time and manner (indiscriminate firing)
of murder. It also goes to show that the
assailants intended to cause death and
ensured that much of injuries which
must result in death of the deceased
persons.

17. It appears to be a peculiar case
and the murder has been committed in
most professional, organized and planned
way. The execution has been brutal,
dreadful and frightening which shows
extreme culpability on the part of the
accused applicants. It introduces a new
facet of crime and criminal world where
the endeavour of the key player is to
confuse the criminal justice process and
explore advantage. Moreover, the accused
applicants have shown a great tendency
to run away from the process of the
criminal justice system and even though,
the charge-sheet was submitted against
them
and
co-accused
persons
in
absconding, about three years after the
filing of charge-sheet, they kept away
from the criminal process and 4 coaccused persons are still absconding.
They approached to this Court by filing
applications under section 482 CrPC;
those applications have been dismissed
on merits; the Supreme Court also
dismissed Special Leave to appeal (Crl.)
No(s) 9282 of 2018 vide order dated
12.7.2018 and there is every reason to
believe that despite knowledge, they kept
absconding from the judicial process.
Therefore, the response to such crime and
criminals is required to be harsh and there
cannot be any room for sympathy.

18. In view of the above, I find the
offence to be very grave and serious and
there is no reason for allowing the bail
applications at this stage. The bail
applications of the accused applicants
Wasi Ahmad, Zabir Hussain and Sabir
are therefore, rejected.

19. However, the applicants may
move
second
bail
application
after
statement of the fact witnesses and such
bail application shall be decided on
merits without being influenced by any
observation made during the course of
disposal of this bail application.

20. Committal of case be ensured in
accordance with law within eight weeks
from the date of production of this order.
Trial to proceed thereafter expeditiously
and be disposed of according to law.
----------
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2021)03ILR A26
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20991 of
2018

Vijay Gupta ...Applicant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Adeel Ahmad Khan, Sri Janardan
Shukla, Sri Neeraj Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law
-
Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections 304-B, 498-A -
Dowry
Prohibition
Act,1961-Section
3⁄4- application-grant of bail-the entire
family has been roped in, unmindful of
the fact of interse relationship by
attributing a general and omnibus role
to everybody-deceased had a newborn
daughter of 10 days-she found dead on
railway track where she went to attend
the natural call-inquest report was got
prepared
on
the
spot
before
the
father-in law of the applicant and
villagers-FIR lodged after 16 days
without explaining such delay- no
evidence collected during investigation
that husband abetted her or conspired
or intentionally aided her.(Para 1 to 7)

The Bail Application is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Rajasthan Vs Bal Chandra, (1977) 4 SCC
308

2. Gudikanti Narasimhulu & ors. Vs PP, HC
of A.P.,(1978) AIR SC 429
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Pachori, J.)

1. Heard Sri Neeraj Singh learned
counsel for applicant and Sri Sanjay Kumar
Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the
material brought on record.

2. The present first bail application
has been filed on behalf of applicant
(husband) with a prayer to release him on
bail in Case Crime No. 132 of 2017, under
Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-
Gauri Bazar District- Deoria, during
pendency of trial.

3. The submission advanced by
learned counsel for applicant; he is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in
the present case during the course of
investigation. It has been further contended
that the applicant is husband and not named
in the F.I.R. The charge sheet has been filed
under Sections under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
only against the applicant. The marriage of
the
deceased
was
solemnized
with
applicant on 19.05.2015 and from the
wedlock of the applicant and the deceased,
they have a new born daughter of 10 days
and she is living with applicant in
applicant's house. The incident took place
on 28.04.2017 at 04:00 A.M. and the dead
body of the deceased was found inside the
railway track where she went to attend the
natural call and the train just crushed her
and the first information report has been
lodged on 13.05.2017, i.e., after 16 days.
The inquest report of the dead body of the
deceased was got prepared on the spot at
11:00 A.M. on 28.04.2017 on the basis of
information received at 07:25 A.M. Corpse
of deceased Reena was identified by the
father-in-law as well as villagers. The