Allahabad High Court
Fakharuddin @ Fakeera vs State Of U.P. on 16 August, 2021
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29265 of 2021 Applicant :- Fakharuddin @ Fakeera Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Katiyar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Om Prakash Katiyar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Fakharuddin @ Fakeera, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 69 of 2021, under Sections 147, 149, 302, 201 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Bisauli, District Budaun.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that although the applicant and four other co-accused persons have been named in the F.I.R. but general role of assault upon the deceased has been assigned to all the accused persons with lathi and danda. It is argued that the version in the F.I.R. is false and incorrect. The incident in question is said to have taken place on 27.2.2021 which is the date on which the deceased is said to have been taken away from the house by the co-accused Abrar but the F.I.R. has been registered after three days i.e. on 2.3.2021 at 17:40 hours without any plausible explanation. It is argued that the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 27.2.2021 which could not have been identified initially and information about the dead body was given by one Vikash Saxena to the police and it was informed that death has occurred due to accident. The inquest proceedings were done on the dead body on the same day as unknown person for which learned counsel has placed annexure no. 2 to the affidavit which is the copy of inquest.
It is argued that subsequently the first informant states that he received photograph of his brother Saleem through Whatapps message and then he went to mortuary and identified the dead body as that of his brother Saleem. Learned counsel has argued that later on the prosecution has shown one Farooq as eye witness to the incident who has stated that he and his companion Istyak saw four accused persons assaulting the deceased with lathi and danda, on which he inquired to them as to why they are assaulting him to which they replied, it is a personal matter and it relates to some monitory dispute to which he has no concern. After which he went away from there but later on he came to know that Saleem has died and then he gave said information to his family members. It is argued that belated disclosure of name of the applicant and other co-accused and registration of F.I.R. is an afterthought. The applicant is in jail since 13.3.2021 having no criminal history as per para-18 of the affidavit.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the F.I.R. has been registered naming the applicant and four other co-accused persons who are stated to be the persons who had assaulted the deceased with lathi and danda and there is an eye witness to the incident namely Farooq who has informed the family member of the deceased about the same. It is argued that the deceased has, as per the post mortem examination report, received five injuries which were of serious in nature, his head was having injury, left ulna bone was found fractured and liver was also found lacerated. The cause of death has been opined by the doctor is shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. It is argued that eye witness account in the present matter has stated about the manner of assault and the incident in detail naming the applicant and the other co-accused persons. It is argued that Farooq is the natural witness to the incident.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and Farooq is said to be the eye witness. The F.I.R. has been registered naming the applicant and other co-accused persons who have assaulted the deceased. The medical examination corroborates with the prosecution version.
Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
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.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 Naresh (Samit Gopal,J.)