SHAHID Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.K. Chandel, Advocate holding brief of Sri S.A. Imam, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

(2.) Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the evidence against the applicant is that of being last seen with the deceased on the motorcycle and then also the recovery of one country made pistol and a knife at the joint pointing out from the house of co-accused Nasir. Further submission is that the objectionable photographs of the wife of the deceased said to have been found are also relating to co-accused Nasir. Further submission is that co-accused Nasir has been nominated as accused in the FIR along with the wife of the deceased with whom co-accused Nasir is said to have been carrying illicit relationship. Emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the applicant that it was alleged in the FIR that one witness Sakir son of Sartaj Khan and witness Firasat are said to have seen the deceased with the applicant and the co-accused Nasir going on a motorcycle but the version that was given in the FIR mentions only co-accused Nasir as the person, who was seen by the aforesaid two witnesses on the motorcycle with the deceased. Further submission is that had the applicant been also seen by the aforesaid two witnesses going on the motorcycle along with co-accused and the deceased, then such facts must have found mentioned in the FIR positively. According to the FIR, it was alleged that when these witnesses were shown the photographs of the wife of the deceased and co-accused Nasir then they had told the first informant to have seen the co-accused Nasir going along with the deceased on the motorcycle. At that stage, they did not disclose the name of the applicant. Further submission is that this omission is of vital importance and goes a long way to discredit the evidentiary value of subsequently introduced name of the applicant as accused. Further submission is that the alleged recovery has also been made from the house of co-accused and the confessional statement recorded by the police at the time of recovery of weapon also indicates that it was co-accused Nasir, who had shot the deceased. Further submission is that conspicuous omission of the applicant's name in the FIR makes the case of the applicant distinguishable from the case of the co-accused Nasir, who appears to be principal offender in the case and who appears to have eliminated the deceased in order to perpetrate the liaison with the wife of the deceased. Further submission is that this case being of the circumstantial evidence, the link of circumstances appears to be incomplete and incapable to give rise to any indefinite inference of the guilt against the applicant. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 5.4.2015 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.