Allahabad High Court
Jami Ahmad And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 26 May, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7587 of 2021 Applicant :- Jami Ahmad And Anr. Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Pandey,Alok Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and gone through the entire record.
2. By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.0261 of 2020, under Sections 376D/506 IPC lodged at Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur.
3. The FIR in question came to be registered pursuant to order passed by the Magistrate on an application moved by the prosecutrix under Section 156(3) CrPC.
4. As per allegation in the FIR, on 05.11.2019 some dance programme was going on in a nearby village of the prosecutrix. The accused-applicants went along with deceased, Vaseek, who was in relation with the prosecutrix, to see the dance programme on the said date. After the dance programme, deceased, Vaseek and the accused-applicants went to house of the prosecutrix. It is alleged that the prosecutrix was sleeping on cot at roof; all the three accused climbed on the roof and, on the threat of knife raped her; prosecutrix, however, raised alarm on which her family members reached and then accused, Jami Ahmad and Vaseek jumped from the roof. It is said that Vaseek, deceased fell on a hand-pump and got badly injured. Later on, Vaseek died, while he was taking to hospital.
5. An FIR, however, was earlier lodged under Section 302/323 IPC on a complaint given by accused-applicant, Jami Ahmad on 06.10.2019 itself. It is said that deceased, Vaseek was having illicit relation with the prosecutrix. On 05.11.2019, the accused, Vaseek (deceased) went to house of the prosecutrix along with accused-applicants and, they were sleeping on the roof; in midnight Vaseek, the deceased came down from the roof and went in a room; after sometime, family members of the prosecutrix started assaulting Vaseek. One of the accused-applicants went to save him, but they also assaulted him. Accused, applicant, Marookh Khan, however, fled away from there. Accused-applicant, Jami Ahmad and deceased, Vaseek were taken by the police, which came when 100 number was dialed in morning of 06.11.2019. Vaseek died in C.H.C., Lahapur and the accused-applicant, Jami Ahmad was medically treated in the hospital for his injuries.
6. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that as a counterblast, to save the accused of FIR No.0555 of 2019 lodged at the same police station, a false application under Section 156(3) CrPC was given on pressure of the accused, who were the family members of the prosecutrix on which the FIR in question came to be registered. It is further submitted that the said FIR lodged on behalf of the accused-applicants was prompt. Accused-applicant, Jami Ahmad himself received serious injuries for which he was treated in CHC and his friend, who was in relation with the prosecutrix, died because of grievous injuries caused by family members of the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that the accused-applicants have been languishing in jail since 25.02.2021 in a false case, whereas the real culprits, who had killed deceased, Vaseek, are family members of the prosecutrix.
7. Mr. Jaiprakash Rai, learned Additional Government Advocate, has opposed the bail, however, he is not in a position to dispute the fact that FIR No.0555 of 2019 was registered on a complaint given by one of the accused-applicants, who himself got injured in the incident and the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, on which the FIR in question was registered, came to be filed on 26.11.2019.
8. Considering all the above facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without commenting upon merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.
9. Let applicants-Jami Ahmad and Marookh Khan, accused of above-mentioned FIR/crime number, be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions, which are imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) the applicant(s) shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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;
(ii). the applicant(s) shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;
(iii). in case, the applicant(s) misuse(s) the liberty of bail and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant(s) fail(s) to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against their in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and
(iv) the applicant(s) shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 26.5.2022 MVS/-