Uttarakhand High Court
Amjad vs State Of Uttarakhand on 19 June, 2025
RESERVED ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Mr. ALOK MAHRA
APPLICATION FOR BAIL & SUSPENSION OF
SENTENCE (I.A. NO.1 OF 2023)
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 225 of 2023
Amjad. ...Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand. ...Respondent
with
APPLICATION FOR BAIL & SUSPENSION OF
SENTENCE (I.A. NO.1 OF 2023)
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 347 of 2023
Mursalin. ...Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand. ...Respondent
(Mr. Avidit Noliyal, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy
Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand)
Reserved on : 05.06.2025
Delivered on : 19.06.2025
ALOK MAHRA, J.
ORDER
These Appeals preferred under Section 374
Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment & order dated
25/27.03.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.113 of 2017, whereby
appellants-Amjad and Mursalin have been convicted
under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and was
awarded life imprisonment with fine of ₹5,000/- each
and, in default of payment of fine, they were sentenced
to undergo three months’ additional rigorous
imprisonment. The appellants have sought their release
on bail.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Farman Ali s/o
late Ashraf Ali, gave a Tehrir on 14.02.2017 at Police
Station Pathri, District Haridwar, with the averments
that his father Ashraf Ali used to sleep in the lower
room of the house; that, in the morning of the fateful
day, he and his son Abhab Ali went to wake up the
father at 08:30 a.m. for tea; that, when he called him,
he did not wake up, then he picked up the quilt from
him, at that moment, he saw that his hands and legs
were stiff and there were marks on his neck and the
blood was oozing from his ears; that, he died due to
strangulation caused by Mursalin, Amzad and Arshad;
that, these three brothers used to fight daily and used
to say that they would take revenge of the death of
their child, who died due to an accident, which
happened two months before; that, since then they
used to threaten them that they will do away the life of
any of the member of the family; that, tonight these
2
three brothers together killed his father by
strangulation, who was sleeping downstairs in the
drawing room; that, except Amjad and Arsahd, 13 days
before, all the family members left for Roorkee and
started living there; that, Mursalin, Arshad and Amjad
have strangled his father to death. He made a request
to lodge a complaint to this effect and take legal action
in the matter.
3. On the basis of the complaint, F.I.R./Case Crime
No. 37 of 2017, under Section 302 of I.P.C was lodged
against Mursalin, Amjad and Arshad at Police Station
Pathri, District Haridwar, on 14.02.2017. Investigation
was conducted and, after completion of investigation,
the Police filed charge sheet against the appellants and,
after filing of the charge sheet, the trial Court has
framed charges against the appellants under Section
302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C and the trial against
the appellants commenced and the learned Sessions
Judge, District Haridwar convicted the appellants in the
aforesaid Sections.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants would
submit that there is no eyewitness of the alleged
incident and the entire case of the prosecution is based
on circumstantial evidence and the chain of
circumstantial evidence is not complete; that, FIR has
been lodged against the appellants only on the basis of
suspicion and apprehension; that, two months prior to
the alleged incident, a child from the appellants’ family
died due to negligence on the part of family of
complainant and, due to this reason, the complainant
roped the appellants by alleging that, for taking
3
revenge of the said incident, appellants have committed
the alleged crime, though a compromise had taken
place between the parties, therefore, there was no
reason for the appellants to have enmity or motive to
commit the alleged crime; that, as per the evidence of
D.W.-1, it is evident that complainant got the insurance
amount in lieu of the child’s death; that, D.W.-2, in his
statement, deposed that 6-7 days before the incident,
he was present in the house of the deceased and
Ashraf’s son, namely, Farman and Nauman pressurised
him to sell the land; but, Ashraf refused to do so; that,
D.W.-2, in his testimony, stated that there was no
dispute with Farman, Nauman and Ashraf about the
death of Amjad’s child.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended
that deceased would have made hue & cry at the time
when he was strangulated; but, surprisingly
complainant, who was residing in the same house,
could not hear any noise of the deceased, which creates
a doubt over the prosecution story; that, learned trial
Court has relied upon extra judicial confession of the
accused allegedly given before P.W.-2 and P.W.-6, who
were neither relatives nor friends of the accused
persons and, on the contrary, both were close relatives
of the deceased and P.W.-2 is also not resident of the
village and have stated to visit his relative in the village
and contradicted that the accused gave extra judicial
confession before them in their cross examination,
therefore, they are interested witnesses and their
testimony cannot be said to be reliable; that, the
alleged recovery of hammer and cable wire was at the
instance of the accused persons; that, the alleged
4
recovery was the joint recovery and map of place of
recovery was also not prepared, which is in violation of
Section 27 of the Evidence Act; that, the evidence of
the prosecution is contradictory, inasmuch as, there
was no ligature mark on the neck of the deceased,
though one nylon rope and a cable wire were shown to
be recovered. Learned counsel for the appellants
submits that prosecution has failed to prove any cogent
motive of appellants/accused to commit the alleged
incident; that, the case of the prosecution is totally
based on the presumption that appellants committed
the alleged incident in order to take revenge of the
accidental death of the child; but, the learned Court
below failed to consider that the said dispute was
compromised and no F.I.R. was lodged from the side of
appellants regarding the said incident. He submits that,
during trial, appellants were on bail and have never
misused the liberty granted to them; that, since the
Appeals are not liable to be taken up for hearing in near
future, therefore, the bail applications may be
considered.
6. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General
vehemently opposed the bail applications. He would
submit that learned trial Court relied upon the prima
facie evidence against the appellants and concluded
that ingredients of the offence under Section 302 read
with Section 34 I.P.C. are attracted and framed the
charges accordingly. He submitted that involvement of
the appellants stood revealed by the investigation and
they have been convicted after trial, based on reliable
and believable evidence, therefore, they are not
entitled to bail.
5
7. Having considered the rival submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and, in particular, the
sequence of incident and since the Appeal is not liable
to be taken up for hearing in near future, prima facie,
we are of the view that the appellants are entitled to be
released on bail. Accordingly, bail applications are
allowed. The sentence dated 25/27.03.2023 stands
suspended.
8. Let the appellants be released on bail
forthwith during the pendency of Appeals, on their
executing a personal bond by each one of them and
furnishing two sureties by each one of them, each in
the like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned,
if not required in any other case.
9. List in due course.
(G. NARENDAR, C.J.)
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
Arpan
6