"Case totally based on circumstantial evidence:" Allahabad High Court grants bail to accused in ex BSP MLA Haji Aleem murder

The Allahabad High Court on Friday granted bail to one Mohd Sharib, a security guard who is an accused in the murder of ex BSP MLA, Haji Aleem (Mohd. Sharib v. State of UP). .The Court said that the case of the prosecution was totally based on "circumstantial evidence" with no evidence or eye-witness to support the claim that the applicant-accused was sleeping in the same room as the MLA. ."Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record at this stage, the bail application deserves to be allowed," single judge Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava ruled. The Court further observed that the deceased was an MLA and it would be unusual for him to ask the accused to sleep in the same room, especially in a big house. "It is not usual and natural why the deceased would ask the applicant to sleep in his room. It was not a guest house where accommodation may not be sufficient and the adjustment was to be made. It was a big house of the deceased, an ex MLA with huge property, and it appears highly improbable that he would ask the applicant, a guard of his own, to sleep in his room and that too without any reason," the order said. .The Court was hearing a bail application moved by Sharib, who was the personal security guard of Aleem. In October 2018, Aleem was found dead in a room which was locked from inside. The incident took place at Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh. When the door/windows of his bedroom were broken, he was found lying on the bed bleeding and there was gun shot injury on his head. After an FIR was filed, investigation took place but the investigating officer (IO) found no evidence and he submitted a final report. Later, a re-investigation was conducted by Crime Branch and evidence was collected and charge-sheet was filed against the accused applicant. It was alleged that the accused/applicant was involved in the murder and he was sleeping in the same room where Haji Aleem was sleeping. .The counsel for the accused submitted that there was no reason for the accused applicant to commit murder of the deceased, and he was not even named in the FIR. It was submitted that initially when his statement recorded by IO, nothing was stated against him. But later, to implicate the applicant, evidence was manipulated, false evidence was created and certain witnesses were reexamined who made improvements to their statements with a view to implicate the accused..On the other hand, the counsel for State and the informant, strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that the matter was investigated and after collecting enough evidence it was found that the accused committed the murder in a very planned manner. Further, it was submitted that the decease was going to Delhi from Aligarh, but it was the accused who insisted that he stays at Bulandshahar. On his pursuance, the deceased agreed to stay in Bulandshahar where his wife resides. "After committing the murder the accused persons locked the door and that was why the door was found locked from inside but no key was recovered from the room. Submission is that the accused applicant had every opportunity as he was with the deceased at the relevant time and having the key of the bedroom," submitted the counsel for informant. .After taking into consideration the submissions and material placed on record, the Court said that the observations made by the IO were based on speculation and suspicion and the case against the accused was totally based on the circumstantial evidence that he was sleeping in the same room with the deceased..In this regard, the Court pointed out that the statement made by Sajid (co-accused in the case) incriminating Sharib was stated only during re-investigation after about 11 months from the date of incident. "It is his second statement and nothing of this sort has come in his first statement," the Court observed. .Therefore, the bail application was allowed and the Court said that the link between the "chain of circumstances" was missing. "The case is totally based on circumstantial evidence and it is difficult at this stage to say that the circumstances alleged against the applicant, if taken together and linked, form a chain of circumstance conclusively leading to an inference that the accused-applicant must have committed the said offence. Apparently unrelated circumstances if joined together must form a chain of circumstances indicating the guilt. I find at this stage that such link is missing.".[Read order]