Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56175 Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36304 of 2024 Applicant :- Chand @ Julfikar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abou Sofian Usmani,Mohd. Jamshed Khan,Sachin Kanaujiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashutosh Mishra,G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard leaned counsel for the applicant-accused, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant-accused in Case Crime No. 134 of 2020, under Section 120-B, 201, 302, 34 IPC, Police Station- Shivkuti, District- Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge the applicant-accused on bail. 3. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.02.2024, which is reproduced as under :- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in S.T. No. 142 of 2020 arising out of case crime No. 134 of 2020, under Section 120-B, 201, 302, 34 IPC, police station Shivkuti, District Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. 3. According to prosecution version, the first information report was lodged against applicant and his three brothers, namely, Siraz, Meraz and Fahad and his father Rizwan. Deceased Irfan is real brother of co-accused Rizwan and uncle of applicant. The deceased Irfan has no child and that after selling some part of his property, deceased Irfan along with his wife Husana @ Moin Fatima (deceased) has gone to 'Haj'. On 02.06.2020 deceased Irfan and his wife were found missing and it was alleged that accused persons have murdered them in order to grab their property. 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant-accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no eye witness of alleged incident. As per prosecution version, some parts of the dead body of deceased Irfan were recovered at the instance of accused persons. Recovery memo of the dead body of deceased Irfan shows that the parts of the dead body of the deceased Irfan were recovered at the instance of co-accused Siraz and Meraz. The dead body of deceased Husana @ Moin Fatima was recovered from Yamuna river. Referring to the recovery memo, it was submitted that it is not the case of prosecution that dead body of either of the deceased was made at the instance of applicant and thus, in this regard the role of applicant is distinguished from the co-accused persons. It was further submitted that it cannot be believed that all the family members of deceased would have indulged in such an incident. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. Alleged 'last seen theory' has been introduced later on through statement of one Mansoor Hussain but that allegation is against co-accused Meraz. The prosecution version is based on confessional statement of the accused persons, which has no evidentiary value and that there is no evidence to establish the conspiracy among the accused persons. Though the bail application of co-accused Rizwan @ Mahfooz Ahmad has already been rejected by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court but the role of applicant is distinguished from that co-accused and neither the dead body of either of the deceased person was shown recovered at instance of the applicant nor any weapon was recovered from him. Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 05.06.2020, having no previous criminal history, and that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that deceased Irfan was having no child and that some time back, he has sold some part of his property and he along with his wife Husana @ Moin Fatima (deceased) has gone to 'Haj'. The applicant and co-accused persons were having apprehension that deceased Irfan may sell his property and that in order to grab his property, the applicant and co-accused persons have hatched a conspiracy and committed murder of both the deceased, namely, Irfan and Husana @ Moin Fatima. It is further submitted that there is credible circumstantial evidence against the applicant and co-accused persons. The dead body of deceased Irfan was recovered at the instance of accused persons. DNA report suggests that the parts of the dead body recovered at the instance of accused persons were of deceased Irfan. Further, the bail application of co-accused Rizwan @ Mahfooz Ahmad has already been rejected by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 6. After considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, gravity of the offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, no case for grant of bail is made out. 7. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicant Chand @ Julfikar is rejected. 8. However, keeping in view the period of detention of the applicant, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 9. A copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial court for necessary compliance." 4. According to prosecution version, the first information report was lodged against applicant and his three brothers, namely, Siraz, Meraz and Fahad and his father Rizwan. Deceased Irfan is real brother of co-accused Rizwan and uncle of applicant. The deceased Irfan has no child and that after selling some part of his property, deceased Irfan along with his wife Husana @ Moin Fatima (deceased) has gone to 'Haj'. On 02.06.2020 deceased Irfan and his wife were found missing and it was alleged that accused persons have murdered them in order to grab their property. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated merely on the basis of suspicion. There is no eye-witness of the alleged incident. As per prosecution version, recovery of skeleton of deceased Irfan was made at the instance of applicant and co- accused persons but there is no independent witness of the incident. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It is further submitted that the alleged last seen theory was introduced by the prosecution later on during investigation. Mainly the case of prosecution is based on confessional statement of accused persons. It is further submitted that first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.02.2024 and trial court was directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the preferably within a period of one year. After rejection of first bail application of applicant, similarly placed accused Siraj Ahmad, Meraj Ahmad and Farhad Ahmad have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The witnesses of facts have already been examined. It was stated that the applicant is in jail since 05.06.2020 and thus, he had already undergone detention of four years and ten months and that there are number of formal witnesses, who are yet to be examined, and thus, trial of the case would take sufficient long time. It was stated that the applicant has no previous criminal history and in case the he is granted bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the trial. 6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the alleged incident, two persons have been murdered. The deceased were uncle and aunt of applicant and co-accused persons. It was submitted that there is evidence to show that applicant and co-accused were involved in the incident. However, it could not be disputed that similarly placed co-accused persons have already been granted bail. 7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, period of detention, stage of trial and the fact that similarly placed co-accused persons have already been granted bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits, a case for bail is made out. Hence, the second bail application is hereby allowed. 8. Let the applicant-accused - Chand @ Julfikar involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: (i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant-accused shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant-accused shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The applicant-accused shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The applicant-accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 9. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant-accused in accordance with law. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Rama Kant Digitally signed by :- RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad