Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.

Allahabad High Court
Abid vs State Of U.P. on 3 August, 2010
Court No. - 46

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 374 CR.P.C. No. - 2060 of 2010

Petitioner :- Abid
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- N.I. Jafri
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate



Naushad Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.

Hon’ble Yogesh Chandra Gupta,J.

Since both the aforesaid appeals arise out of same judgement and case crime,
hence prayer for bail in the aforesaid appeals are being heard and disposed of
together by this common order.

Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that this is a case of
circumstantial evidence and the circumstances are not sufficient to link the
appellants with this offence. The appellants are said to have come to the house
of informant and left his house for Shamli along with deceased Abdul
Rehman on the pretext of giving papers of motorcycle which was purchased
by his son from Mohd. Irfan. An unknown dead body was found on 21.4.2005
from the field of Jitendra Pal. After learning that an unknown dead body was
found, he went to P.S. Adarsh Mandi, Shamli and on the basis of photograph
etc. the dead body was identified to be that of his son . It is further argued by
the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no evidence of last seen
with the deceased. There is some discrepancies in timing inasmuch as PW-2
Kamgar Khan says that the deceased went with the appellants at 12.00 P.M
whereas PW-1 mentioned the time as 10.00 A.M. The FIR was lodged on
29.4.2005 and prior to this, even Gumdudgi report was not lodged. Nothing
was recovered from the appellant Abid. Although from the appellant
Naushad, a knife was recovered on his pointing out which was blood stained.
It is argued that the knife was not sent to serologist .

Per contra, learned AGA argued that the report was got lodged after the
informant was satisfied that his son had been murdered. There is no reason to
disbelieve the recovery of knife from the appellant Naushad as he is also
convicted under Section 25(4) of Arms Act. The deceased was taken away to
Shamli with the appellants on the pretext that the papers of motor cycle which
was purchased by him from Mohd. Irfan and for returning the money to the
deceased. It is submitted that the case of appellant Abid is distinguishable
from the appellant Naushad.

Having considered the submissions of the parties and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, we are not inclined to grant bail to the
appellant Naushad. His prayer for bail is accordingly rejected, but the
appellant Abid has made out a case for bail.

Let the appellant Abid convicted and sentenced in S.T. No. 1056 of 2005
State Vs. Naushad connected with S.T. No. 612 of 2007 , arising out of case
crime No. 183 of 2005, under section 302/34 I.P.C and 201 IPC, P.S. Adarsh
Mandi, Shamli, district Muzaffarnagar be released on bail on his executing a
personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of court concerned.

The hearing of the appeal is expedited. Office to prepare the paper book
preferably within three months and to list the appeal for hearing thereafter.

Order Date :- 3.8.2010

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

103 queries in 0.178 seconds.