The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of the accused in the famous Kamlesh Tiwari murder and conspiracy case of Lucknow.
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Syed Asim Ali.
Applicant-Syed Asim Ali has approached the Court by way of filing the bail application seeking enlargement on bail in Case under Sections 302, 120B IPC and 66 of Information Technology Act, Police Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow.
This is a case of extreme communal hatred. In the year 2016 named two accused, i.e, Mohammd Mufti Naeem Kazmi and Imam Maulana Anwarul Haq, have issued a Ferman (Order) that they will pay hefty amount of Rs 51 lacs and Rs 1.5 crore respectively to the person, who will cause death of deceased, who allegedly made comments with regard to Paigamber of a particular religion.
Initially FIR was lodged on 18.10.2019 by the wife of the deceased against unknown persons and two named accused that on fateful day, two unknown assailants came at the office of the deceased in presence of Complainant. At that time one Saurashtra Singh was also present. Complainant left the office, however, when she returned after some time since there was no voice of conversation, she found that her husband died due to multiple stab injuries and firearm injuries. She also declared that she could recognize the two unknown assailants.
As per post mortem report, immediate cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to multiple ante mortem injuries. According to ante mortem injuries, there were firearm injuries as well as about half dozen stab wounds all over the body of the deceased. There were incised wounds (cut throat also). As such it was a case of brutal daylight murder.
According to record a detailed investigation was carried out and not only two assailants were identified but a large conspiracy was also detected and finally a charge sheet was filed against 13 accused persons including applicant before this Court.
It is also brought on record that co-accused, Mohd Jafar Sadiq Kuppelur, has been granted bail by the Court vide order dated 14.07.2023 while bail application of co-accused, Faizan Member has been rejected vide order dated 12.03.2024 and therein direction was passed by a Coordinate Bench to conclude the trial expeditiously.
It is also brought on record that earlier on a transfer application filed by accused persons, trial was transferred from Lucknow Judgeship to Prayagraj Judgeship by an order passed by Supreme Court. It is also informed that out of 35 proposed witnesses till date seven have been examined, whereas the applicant has been in jail since 24.10.2019, i.e, for about 4 years and 5 months.
Counsel for applicant submitted that applicant is not the main assailant and according to best evidence available with prosecution, he is a part of larger conspiracy that before occurrence there were repeated telephone calls between him and main assailants and in the confessional statements of main assailants, they were allegedly assigned role to applicant to provide legal aid to them in case they were arrested.
Counsel refers to the order dated 14.07.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court whereby co-accused, Mohd Jafar Sadiq Kuppelur was granted bail.
Per contra, the Additional Advocate General appearing for State submitted that accused persons have hatched a conspiracy and in a very planned manner the deceased was brutally murdered. Applicants were assigned specific roles to provide legal aid to main assailants in case they got arrested. There are call details soon before occurrence between assailants and applicant and as such he was actively involved in crime.
The Court considered the above mentioned rival submissions in referred factual and legal backgrounds and in view of established principle of jurisprudence of bail i.e ‘bail is rule and jail is exception’ as well as relevant factors for consideration of a bail application such as (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; (viii) danger, of course of justice being thwarted by grant of bail etc, and that an order to grant or not to grant bail must assigned reasons (see Deepak Yadav vs State of U.P. (2022) 8 SCC 559 , Manoj Kumar Khokar vs State of Rajasthan and Anr (2022) 3 SCC 501 , The State of Jharkhand vs Dhananjay Gupta @ Dhananjay Prasad Gupta: Order dated 7.11.2023 , Shiv Kumar Vs The State of U.P and Ors : Order dated 12.9.2023,
The Court opined that present is not a fit case to grant bail to applicant mainly on following grounds:- (a) It is a case where the deceased was subjected to extreme communal hatred and was eliminated by way of a brutal daylight murder. (b) Not only multiple stabbed wounds were inflicted but the deceased’s throat was also cut and there was a firearm injury also. (c) There is substantial evidence that the applicant was involved in crime and was part of a larger conspiracy and a specific role was assigned to him to give legal assistance to main assailants if they got arrested. (d) There is electronic evidence to the effect that the applicant has called multiple times to the main assailants soon before occurrence. (e) The main assailants were identified by two witnesses. (f) Considering the manner of assault and larger conspiracy there is reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced. (g) There are directions passed by the Court to expedite trial and according to records out of the proposed 35 witnesses, 7 have been examined.
In view of the above discussion, the Court rejected the bail application.