ANSAR AHMAD versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 577 · Decided: 18-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT, J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
577
ANSAR AHMAD
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1168 of 2023)
APRIL 18, 2023
[SURYA KANT AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Bail – Bail applications filed by two respondents herein in a
case crime u/ss.147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B and 34 IPC and ss.
3 & 4 of Explosive Substances Act before the High Court was granted
– It was alleged that appellant’s son was killed in a contract killing
– During the course of investigation, it was found that while one of
the respondents was allegedly present at the spot at the time of
occurrence, the other respondent was a part of the conspiracy
hatched to eliminate victim-deceased – On appeal, held: The offences
were serious in nature and the respondents were allegedly involved
in a contract killing – Both respondents had a criminal record –
There was a material to indicate the motive behind the murder –
Earlier, both respondents were found guilty in a case u/s. 302 IPC –
In the instant case, one of the eyewitness is yet to depose as a
prosecution witness and it is expedient and is always in the interest
of criminal justice system that the prayer for bail is considered after
ensuring that the statements of the vital witnesses stand recorded
and there is no likelihood of influencing or tampering their evidence
– Series of orders passed by the trial Court also indicate that
respondents were seeking exemption from personal appearance and
trial was completely stalled – Taking into consideration all the
relevant facts and circumstances, the High Court did not take into
consideration the relevant material while granting bail to the private
respondents – Appeals allowed – Orders of the High Court granting
bail set aside.
Ash Mohammad v. Shivraj Singh @ Lalla Babu and
Another (2012) 9 SCC 446 : [2012] 7 SCR 584; Puran
v. Rambilas and Another (2001) 6 SCC 338 : [2001] 3
SCR 432; Venkatesan Balsubramaniyan v. The
Intelligence Officer, DRI Bangalore (2020) 13 SCALE
191 : [2020] SCR 942 – referred to.
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 577
577
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
578
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2012] 7 SCR 584
referred to
Para 15
[2001] 3 SCR 432
referred to
Para 16
[2020] SCR 942
referred to
Para 17
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1168 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in BN No. 624
of 2019.
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1169 of 2023.
Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv., Talha Abdul Rahman, Ms. Vidhi Thaker,
M Shaz Khan, Ms. Gayatri Dahiya, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sharan Thakur, A.A.G., Basant R, Sr. Adv., Rohit K. Singh,
Siddharth Thakur, Mustafa Sajad, Divyesh Pratap Singh, Vikram Pratap
Singh, Kavinesh Rm, Ms. Shivangi Singh, Ms. Ishita Bedi, Ms. Ranjana
Singh, Ajay Prabu, Ms. Shivani Singh, S. R. Setia, K B Upadhyay, C P
Pandey, S N Tripathi, Ms. Pinki Tiwari, Shailesh Tiwari, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant seeks to assail two orders of even date i.e.,
23.09.2021, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow whereby the Bail Application No. 624 of
2019, filed by the respondent – Subhash Yadav, and Bail Application No.
4309 of 2019, filed by the respondent – Rajesh Vikram Singh, in Case
Crime No. 17 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B/34
IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, Police Station
Jagdishpur, District Amethi were allowed and both the abovementioned
respondents have been enlarged on regular bail.
3. The allegations are that the appellant along with his son –
Ashfaque Ahmad and his companions were present in front of Jagdishpur
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
579
Branch of Vijaya Bank when the accused Vanshraj Yadav attacked
Ashfaque Ahmad by throwing a grenade, and thereafter, Satai and other
accused persons started indiscriminate firing due to which, Ashfaque
Ahmad died on the spot and Razi Ahmad @ Manu received injuries.
Two accused persons were caught hold on the spot with the help of
public. One of them disclosed his name, Amit Chaubey S/o Vindhyachal
Chaubey, resident of Bihar while the second accused did not disclose his
name. Two country made pistols, two magazines and one mobile phone
were recovered from their possession. During the course of interrogation,
accused – Amit Chaubey disclosed that the respondent (Rajesh Vikram
Singh) and his brother had sent the accused persons for committing the
murder of Ashfaqu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.