Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Usman Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

Home
Allahabad HC
2018
Usman Vs State of U.P.Usman v. State of U.P.

Allowed

Usman v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 May 2018BAIL/12107/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant alleged in a murder case involving assault with a spade near the incident spot with cross-case injuring.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each.

What the court decided

AI extract

A

Court No. - 55

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12107 of 2016

Applicant :- Usman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey,Dileep Kumar Singh,Lal Babu Lal,Mohd. Aslam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Saran

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

Vakalatnama filed by Virendra Singh, learned counsel on behalf of applicant is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

According to the prosecution case the F.I.R. was lodged against Burhan, Sufiyan, Usman and Sazid alleging that on 18.7.2015 they entered into the house of complainant and assaulted Mohatsim, Muntjir and Shakil with 'lathi-danda' and spade. Mohatsim received two lacerated wounds on head caused by hard and blunt object and one abrasion, and died resultantly. Shakil received two lacerated wounds and Muntjir received no injury.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accused Sufiyan and Sazid have already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 7.1.2016 & 12.1.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.46273 of 2015 & 254 of 2016 respectively(Bail orders produced are taken on record). The applicant has been falsely implicated. He is languishing in jail since 22.7.2015 (two years and ten months) having no criminal history. According to prosecution case, this accused assaulted with spade but no injury of incised would was found on body of deceased. There is cross-case being Case Crime No. 209 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 307, 504, 506, 323 IPC and Sufiyan, Sajid, Junaid and Gulistan received injuries. There is no possibility to get this case decided in near future. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; he is languishing in jail

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail given the gravity of the offence and circumstances of custody.
2.
Whether the bail application should be allowed in the facts of the present case.
3.
Whether specific conditions should be imposed on the grant of bail.

Parties & counsel

AI extract

applicant
Usman

Coram

AI extract

Aniruddha Singh

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Allahabad HC
Decided on: 23 May 2018 · May
Registered: 16 Apr 2016
Case no.: BAIL/12107/2016

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Aniruddha Singh

Ramanand Sharma Vs State of U.P.
22 May 2018
Girish Chandra Alias Gorelal Vs State of U.P.
22 May 2018
Surya Narain Vs State of U.P.
22 May 2018
Dheerendra Vs State of U.P.
23 May 2018

Cite this judgement

Usman v. State of U.P., BAIL/12107/2016 (ALL), decided on 23 May 2018.

The Allahabad High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

Aniruddha Singh

Parties & counsel

Outcome

The applicant was released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is eligible for bail given the gravity of the offence and circumstances of custody. +2 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The court allowed bail to the applicant. The court observed that co-accused had been enlarged on bail and the applicant had no criminal history, making it a fit case for bail. The court imposed conditions including executing a personal bond, furnishing two sureties, and refraining from tampering with evidence or witnesses. The order was passed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and admitted that he has received no criminal history against this accused.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for

bail. Hence the bail application is hereby allowed.

Let applicant Usman involved in the Case Crime No. 189 of 2015, under Section 302, 452, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Nagal, District Saharanpur, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

Order Date :- 23.5.2018 P.P.

CNR

UPHC010395322016

Topic

Murder and Culpable Homicide

Bench

Aniruddha Singh

Disposal

Allowed/Partly Allowed on merits

Rahul Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

23 May 2018

Kapil Gurjar Alias Ajay Vs State of U.P.

23 May 2018