Mohammad Aadil vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Satyen Vaidya, J

Petitioner is an accused in case registered vide FIR No.14 of 2021 dated 04.02.2021 at Police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur, H.P. under

Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC. Petitioner is in custody since 05.02.2021.

Petitioner has approached this Court for bail, in above noted case, under Section 439 Cr. P.C., on the grounds that the investigation in the case is

already complete and after presentation of challan, the case is pending adjudication before learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. It is averred that

implication of petitioner is false and there is no legal evidence on record to suggest an inference of his involvement in alleged crime. It has further

been contended that petitioner belongs to a respectable family and has roots in the society; he is sole bread earner of the family, is only 22 years old

and his further custody will affect his career. He doesn’t have any past criminal record. He has undertaken not to make any inducement, threat or

promise to the persons acquainted with the facts of the case and also to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed against him.

On notice, respondent has submitted status reports, from time to time, the last being dated 16.01.2022. The police file was also produced at the time

of hearing of the matter. Perusal of status reports as well as records from the police file, reveal that on investigation, involvement of petitioner along

with one Farrah @ Tamanna has been found in the alleged crime and the challan has accordingly been presented in the Court of competent

jurisdiction where the same is pending adjudication.

As per the case of respondent, on 04.02.2021, a telephonic information was received at Police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur, that an un-

identified dead body was lying between places “Delag and Daliâ€. On such information, a police party reached the spot. Subsequently, the SHO,

Police Station, Barmana also reached the spot and conducted preliminary investigation. Statement of Arvind Kumar Sharma was recorded under

Section 154 Cr.P.C., who had seen the dead body lying on the spot along with other local residents. On further investigation, one ‘Aadhar Card’

bearing name of Mohammad Aadil was found in the vicinity where the dead body was lying. The details mentioned in the said ‘Aadhar Card’

were tracked, which revealed that the person named in the ‘Aadhar Card’ belonged to a place “Mohalla Islam Nagar, Kasba Patiyapada,

Thana Chandpur, District Bijnor, U.P.â€. It also transpired during investigation that a missing report with respect to a person named Ram Raj was

recorded at Police Station, Nayi Mandi, Muzaffarnagar on 01.02.2021 and in the course of inquiry on such report, a person with a female had been

tracked on the basis of CDRs. It was further informed by the officials of Police Station, Nayi Mandi, Muzaffarnagar that the person and female

rounded off by them along with a few other persons, were being brought to Police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur for identifying the dead body

found on 04.02.2021 within the jurisdiction of said Police Station. The person along with female brought by the police from Police Station, New Mandi,

Muzaffarnagar were identified as Mohammad Aadil (petitioner) and Farrah @ Tamanna (the other co- accused in the case). They were accompanied

by the other persons, one of whom, was the brother of Ram Raj. All of these persons identified the dead body, found between “Delag and Daliâ€

on 04.02.2021, to be that of Ram Raj. On further investigation, it was found that the petitioner and Farrah @ Tamanna in furtherance of their common

intention had caused death of Ram Raj by causing injuries on his person with an iron hammer at place near Namol Barot, P.O. Baroti, Tehsil

Sundernagar, District Mandi. The body of Ram Raj was then carried in a vehicle (Alto Car) No. HP-21A-5999 up to the place between “Delag

and Daliâ€​, where the same was ultimately found on 4.2.2021.

As per the further case of respondent, the vehicle (Alto Car) No. HP-21A-5999 was found to be owned by the wife of one Anil Kumar, who

disclosed to the police during investigation that on 25.01.2021 he had left the said vehicle in custody of petitioner for denting and painting work at Bari

Chowk, Ladrour where the petitioner was having a workshop. The clothes worn by petitioner on the date of alleged offence were also allegedly

recovered during investigation. On scientific examination of vehicle (Alto Car) No. HP-21A-5999 blood stains were found. On scientific analysis, i.e.

serological examination as well as DNA profiling, the blood sample of deceased picked from the spot where the dead body was found matched with

the blood found on the trouser (lower) of petitioner as well as the seat of Alto Car No. HP-21A-5999. The police also found during investigation that

in order to suppress the crime and to mislead the police, petitioner had visited Sarkaghat Bus stand on 28.01.2021 and had placed the mobile phone of

deceased underneath a seat of a bus en-route from Sarkaghat to Delhi, which later was found by the Conductor of the bus, who during investigation

handed over the same to the police. On scanning of CCTV footage of bus stand Sarkaghat for the relevant period of time, it was discovered that

petitioner had boarded and de-boarded a bus within a span of 2-3 minutes. The motive ascribed to petitioner is that he suspected illicit relations

between deceased and his wife Farrah @ Tamanna.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have gone through the records.

Though at the stage of consideration of bail application the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency is not to be scanned minutely, yet to

assess prima-facie involvement of the bail petitioner in alleged crime, the material collected on record can always be appreciated for such limited

purpose. From the perusal of status report as well as material contained in Police file, it cannot be said that the accusations made against petitioner are

completely unjustified or uncalled for. The facts that petitioner’s Aadhar Card was found in the vicinity of a place where the dead body was

dumped, version of witness Anil Kumar that he had handed over vehicle (Alto Car) bearing No. HP-21A-5999 for repairs to petitioner on 25.01.2021

coupled with matched DNA profile of blood stains found in the said vehicle with the blood sample of deceased are sufficient to prima-facie point a

finger of accusation against petitioner.

The allegations against petitioner and his co-accused Farrah @ Tamanna are very serious in nature. They are alleged to have committed a cold

blooded murder and had thereafter intentionally and deliberately caused disappearance of evidence and also conducted themselves in such a way so

as to mislead the probable investigation. The offence alleged against petitioner, if proved, attracts even capital punishment. In such circumstances, the

grant of bail to the petitioner, in all probabilities, will have adverse effect on the Society.

Petitioner is permanent resident of Mohalla Islam Nagar, Kasba Patiyapada, Thana Chandpur, District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh and his release on bail

may cause his subsequent appearance for the purpose of trial difficult if not impossible. This may hamper the course of trial, which needs to be

speedily concluded in order to instill confidence of general masses in the legal system. In the given facts of the case, it also cannot be said with

certainty that the petitioner with psyche attributed to him will not try to influence the prosecution witnesses.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau

of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40, judgments passed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Hem Singh @ Bhimu vs. State of H.P. 2019 (Suppl.)

Him.L.R. (HC) 3006 and Cr.MP(M) No. 2182 of 2019 titled Laxman Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 24.01.2020, in support of his

case. However, none of the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner, have application in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In light of above discussion, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.

Any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the

matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.

Petition stands disposed of.