Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Beheading Woman As She Refused To Convert After Marriage

Considering the gravity of the offence, the role assigned to the accused-applicant (Shoeb Akhtar) and the stage of the trial, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh did not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

The case in brief

According to the prosecution's case, after the victim (Priya Soni) married co-accused Ajaj Ahmad, both Ajaj and the current applicant, Akhtar, pressured her to convert to Islam. However, the deceased was unwilling to accept the Muslim religion.

Since Ajaj did not want to bring the victim to his home without her converting, so he kept her in a rented house and as she kept on refusing to convert, she was allegedly murdered by Ajaj and Akhtar (applicant-accused).

Her headless body was found by the police near a drain on September 21. Both accused were apprehended together, and incriminating materials were recovered based on their disclosure.

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the High Court in January, considering the facts that, as per the postmortem report, the death of the deceased was due to antemortem separation of the neck from the body.

He moved the second bail plea on the ground that co-accused Ajaj Ahmad (the victim's husband) had been granted bail by the coordinating Bench of the Court in October 2023.

On the other hand, opposing his bail plea, the Additional Government Advocate contended that co-accused Ajaj had obtained bail concealing the order of January 2023 wherein bail plea of Akhtar was rejected.

It was also submitted that in the order (granting bail to Aijaj), a wrong argument of the statewas recorded that "it is admitted fact that applicant has been in jail for the last eight and a half years."

Against this backdrop, the State argued that the offence is heinous in nature; therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, the applicant's bail application is liable to be rejected.

High Court's order

Having heard counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, the Court found substance in the submission of the Additional Government Advocate that while passing the order in October 2023 (granting bail to Aijaj), the Court did not take into account the order of January 2023 (wherein bail was denied to Akhtar).

Also, the wrong period of detention of the accused—Ajaj had been mentioned in the case.

Given this, the Court refused to grant him bail. However, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Sonbhadra, to ensure the presence of all remaining prosecution witnesses at the next trial court date.

Further, the trial court has also been instructed to endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously and not grant any adjournments to either party.

Case title - Shoeb Akhtar vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 429

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 429

Click Here To Read/Download Order