Court No. - 71

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55732 of 2021

Applicant :- Ajmal Hasan

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Nasira Adil,Mohd Zubair,Sr. Advocate

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Avinash Pandey,Ramesh Chandra Yadav

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Zubair,

learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the

first informant, Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel 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-Ajmal Hasan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in

connection with Case Crime No.372 of 2021, under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506

IPC, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur.

The FIR of the present case was lodged on 22.6.2021 at about 5.10 a.m. by

Naushad against the applicant and four other accused persons with regards to the

murder of his cousin brother Firoz which was alleged to have taken place on

21.6.2021 at about 7.45 hours. In the said report it is mentioned that prior to the

occurrence, co-accused Ajam, applicant Ajmal Hasan and Mukarram had

entered into a marpeet with Firoz who ran away and saved himself after which

the accused persons caught him near the shop of doctor bangali and assaulted

him with knife due to which he received injury on his vital part of the body.

Mohsin, Mujeeb, Mohsin, the brother of the first informant and the first

informant saw the incident. Firoz was taken to the hospital in precarious

condition from where he was referred to Saharanpur from where he was again

referred to higher centre where during treatment he died.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely

implicated in the present case. It is argued that the FIR has been lodged after an

inordinate delay of about ten hours for which there is no explanation given. It is

argued that during the investigation the police has exonerated four co-accused

persons namely Ajam, Shahrukh @ Bhura, Parvez and Mukarram. The first

informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has reiterated the

version of the FIR. The other alleged witnesses Mujeeb, Mohsin, Mohsin, the

brother of the first informant have stated that they were told about the incident

by Naushad and the first informant and as such they were not eye-witnesses of

the incident. Although the police has shown the recovery of knife on the

pointing out of the applicant but there is no corroboration of the use of the said

weapon. The first informant although claims himself to be an eye-witness of the

incident but he is not an eye-witness and he is a chance witness. There is a

CCTV footage on the basis of which the four other accused persons have been

exonerated by the police in which there is no credible evidence seen against the

applicant. It is further argued that the present incident is stated to have taken at

7.45 p.m. but CCTV footage has shown of the fight of the applicant with the

deceased at 8.20.50 p.m. which does not co-relate with the incident as stated in

the FIR. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal

history as stated in para 27 of the affidavit and is in jail since 24.6.2021.

Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the

State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first informant

is an eye-witness of the incident who has stated that the applicant assaulted the

deceased with knife. The postmortem report corroborates the prosecution story.

A blood stained knife has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant

which is the weapon of assault. Even there are three other witnesses of the

incident who have been mentioned in the FIR. The delay in lodging of the FIR

has been satisfactory explained by the first informant in the report itself. It is

further argued that i