Allahabad High Court
Rizwan vs State Of U.P. on 15 May, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80670 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21913 of 2024 Applicant :- Rizwan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Afzal Ansari,Mohd. Khalil Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Mohd. Khalil, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Rizwan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.0387 of 2015, under Sections 326-A, 302 and 34 IPC, P.S. Lisari Gate, District Meerut.
4. This is a third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 23.4.2019 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.34896 of 2015. Thereafter the second bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 14.6.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.321 of 2021.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that trial in the matter has started in which Nisar, the first informant was examined as P.W.1 who although supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief but in his cross-examination, he did not support the prosecution case. It is further argued that Smt. Miskeena, Smt. Tarannum, Km. Gulista and Km. Nisha, the alleged injured of the present matter were examined before the trial court as P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 respectively who have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. It is submitted that co-accused Majid has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.4.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13984 of 2024, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.9 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is further submitted that co-accused Sajid has also been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.3.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.36450 of 2024, copy of the same produced by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 31 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 10.02.2015 and as such has undergone about 10 years and 3 months in jail. In all there are 25 witnesses out of whom only 5 witnesses have been examined, as such trial will take time to conclude the trial. The applicant be thus enlarged on bail.
6. Per contra learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not disputed the factual aspect of the matter.
7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is the third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as infructuous by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.4.2019, the said order reads as under:-
"1. This is a bail application pending since 2015. Called in revise. None appeared to press it. Learned A.G.A. is present for State. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.
2. It appears that either trial has concluded or applicant has lost interest for any other reason and that's why none is present to press it. Therefore, by efflux of time, this application has rendered infructuous.
3. Dismissed accordingly. "
8. Thereafter the second bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.6.2021, the said order reads as under:-
"Heard Sri Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Sanyukta Singh, learned brief-holder for the State and perused the material on record.
This is the second bail application.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. (as he then was) vide order dated 23.04.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.34896 of 2015- "Rizwan Vs. State of U.P." The said order is quoted herein below:-
"1. This is a bail application pending since 2015. Called in revise. None appeared to press it. Learned A.G.A. is present for State. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.
2. It appears that either trial has concluded or applicant has lost interest for any other reason and that's why none is present to press it. Therefore, by efflux of time, this application has rendered infructuous.
3. Dismissed accordingly."
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Rizwan seeking enlargement on bail involved in Case Crime No.387 of 2015, u/s 326-A, 302, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Lisadi Gate, District Meerut.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued and pleaded a single fact that the case was committed before the Sessions Court on 23.11.2015 and the charges were framed on 15.12.2015 after which vide order dated 12.01.2016 the matter was fixed for evidence on 1.2.2016 and summons were issued to the witnesses but till date not a single witness has turned-up to give any testimony in spite of many dates being fixed in the matter over a period of five years. Learned counsel has placed before this Court para nos.13, 14 and 15 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application to buttress his submission and has placed annexure no.5 being the order sheet of the trial court from 21.11.2015 to 24.9.2020 for the same. It is further argued that the applicant is in jail since 10.2.2015 without any fault of his and no efforts have been made by the prosecution to produce the witnesses so that he would get benefited by an expeditious trial. It is further argued that looking to the long period of incarceration and the fact that the trial is pending without any witness till date coming forward to depose before the trial court, the applicant be released on bail. It is further argued while placing para no.16 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application that the applicant is having no criminal history except for the false implication in the present case and he is a labour and has been falsely implicated, as such the applicant be released on bail.
Per contra learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel though did not dispute the fact regarding the recitals in the order sheet as placed by the learned counsel for the applicant but has argued that as many as seven persons in the present matter had received burn injuries due to throwing of acid on them out of which one person namely Uzma died and even a child aged about seven months received acid burn injuries. Injured Uzma, the deceased was the wife of Sajid, the brother of the applicant. The implication of the application is based on cogent eye-witnesses and the chances of mis-identification does not appear in the matter as he was closely related to the side of the first informant and the other injured persons. Looking to the facts of the case the bail application of the applicant be rejected.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is apparent that the applicant is named in the first information report along with two other co-accused persons and role of throwing acid upon seven persons have been stated therein out of whom one person namely Uzma has died and in the fitness of things as of now this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously, if possible within a period of one year strictly, in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others : (2002) 1 SCC 655, Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab : (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain and another Vs. Union of India : (2017) 5 SCC 702, subject to any legal impediment.
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."
9. The trial in the matter is going on in which first informant Nisar although has supported the prosecution case in examination-in-chief but then subsequently in the cross-examination did not support the prosecution case. Four other alleged injured witnesses namely Smt. Miskeena, Smt. Tarannum, Km. Gulista and Km. Nisha who were examined before the trial court as P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 respectively have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. There was one other injured Smt. Uzma who had died earlier. The applicant is in jail since 10.2.2015 and as such has remained in jail for about 10 years and 3 months. Five witnesses only have been examined and there are other witnesses to be examined as appears from the charge sheet. Two co-accused have been granted bail.
10. Looking to 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.
11. Let the applicant-Rizwan, 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.
12. 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.
13. The bail application is allowed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Gaurav Kuls