A HEAVY-DUTY LIES ON THE STATE TO PROTECT WITNESSES FROM BEING TAMPERED WITH. ACCUSED INVOLVED IN TAMPERING WITH THE EVIDENCE IS NOT ENTITLED TO BAIL: Allahabad High Court
Tampering with evidence: Tampering with evidence is an act in which a person alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys evidence with the intent to interfere with an investigation (usually) by a law-enforcement, governmental, or regulatory authority. It is a criminal offense in many jurisdictions.
Allahabad High Court in Gufran Ahmed vs State of UP (CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.- 32428 of 2009) and MUSLIM @ Guddu vs State of UP (CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.- 33250 of 2009) learned bench led by HONOURABLE JUSTICE SHRIKANTH TRIPATHI held that an accused involved in tampering with the evidence is not entitled to bail.
These two bail applications have been filed relating to the same case under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 506, and 120-B IPC and section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, police station hence are being disposed of by this common order.
FACTS OF THE CASE: The complainant’s spouse Raju Pal and his companions Devi Lal Pall and Sandeep Yadav were allegedly assassinated by seventy-eight people, according to the FIR. Om Prakash, Saifullah, and Rukhsana were among the three people that were shot. According to the FIR, Mr. Atiq Ahmad, a former Member of Parliament from the Samajwadi Party, orchestrated the murder of the complainant’s husband with the help of 7-8 people, including his brother Ashraf, who had run against the complainant’s husband in an election. The police investigated the incident and filed a charge sheet against Atiq Ahmad, his brother Ashraf, and other individuals, against whom the trial was continued and fourteen witnesses were questioned, none of whom corroborated the prosecution account.
In the interim, the Bahujan Samajwadi Party came to power in the state, prompting a new investigation by the CB CID, which concluded with the CB CID filing a supplementary charge sheet against the petitioners and other accused.
JUDGEMENT: The hon’ble court stated that they do not believe it is appropriate to release the applicants on bail, given the facts and circumstances of the case, the seriousness of the crime, the applicants’ complicity, and the nature of the evidence, and reasonable suspicion of witness tampering. As a result, both bail applications are denied.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY RIYA DWIVEDI