Allahabad High Court
Rahul vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 April, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51276 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10561 of 2025 Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arshi Abdy,Hiralal,Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. AND Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1886 of 2025 Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arshi Abdy,Hiralal,Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Kant Tiwari,Suneel Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Since both the bail applications filed by one and the same accused arise out of the same case crime, they are being decided by this common order.
3. Heard Sri Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Suneel Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. The present bail applications have been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.149 of 2024, under Sections 65(1), 137(2), 103(1) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Alinagar, District- Chandauli with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
PROSECUTION STORY:
5. The FIR was instituted by the informant stating that his niece was missing since 22.7.2024, as such, FIR was instituted against unknown person the same night at 09:39 p.m. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the said offence.
7. The applicant is not named in the FIR, although it is true that his mobile number stands mentioned in it, but only vague allegations have been made that victim used to have conversation with the said mobile number which belongs to the applicant. There is no cogent or direct evidence against him.
8. Only the statements of four witnesses, namely, Akshay Kumar, Satyam, Kapil and Rajan have been garnered by the Investigating Officer who have stated that applicant and the deceased person were there and the victim was adamant in remaining with the applicant only and was not ready to go to her house, but there is no evidence of applicant taking away the victim or subjecting her to strangulation or any kind of assault as is indicative in the post-mortem report.
9. The inquest proceedings of the deceased person were undertaken on 24.7.2024 and she was last seen with the applicant on 22.7.2024 at 02:00 a.m. There is short time difference between the place of last seen with the applicant and the place of recovery of the dead body as there are several check dams built on the canal, as such, it was not possible for the dead body to reach the place of recovery.
10. The distance between the place of last seen and that of recovery of the dead body is almost 09 Kms., as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication.
11. The applicant has simply been made an accused on the basis of false allegations. The mother of the applicant had given an application to the Chief Minister and several other authorities, whereby it is stated that it is a matter of different castes and the deceased belongs to upper caste, as such, it is a clear cut case of honour killing as the family members of the applicant had left the deceased person at the house of the informant on 22.7.2024 itself.
12. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.7.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:
13. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that case of the applicant is at a different footing to that of other two co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail as he is the primary accused person. His mobile number stands mentioned in the FIR itself and it is revealed from the true-caller that the said mobile number belongs to the applicant only.
14. There is last seen evidence of four witnesses who had seen the applicant and deceased person in close proximity and the dead body has been found down stream in the said canal.
15. There is no check dam in the canal from the place of last seen to the place of recovery of the dead body. There is no proper explanation of the fact as to why the applicant has been falsely implicated in the FIR itself, whereby his mobile number has been mentioned.
16. The CDRs of the applicant and the witnesses mentioned in the case diary indicate that they were present at one and the same place at the alleged time of last seen.
17. The cause of death is strangulation and the victim has sustained other injuries also, which indicate towards struggle by the victim at the time of murder.
CONCLUSION:
17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the statement of said four witnesses who had seen the applicant and deceased person with each other coupled by the fact that the cause of death has been found to be strangulation and the serologist's report indicates that spermatozoa has been found in her vaginal smear, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
18. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 9.4.2025/Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal)