Allowed

Imran v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 May 2018BAIL/15372/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 437 CrPC, the Court allowed the prayer, noting that the applicant claims parity with co-accused who were already granted bail. The applicant alleged false implication and planted weapon. The Court permitted bail despite the gravity of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15372 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Imran Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Faya Nath Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit and counter affidavit filed today are taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.

¶7

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against Rustam, Monu, Amjad and Imran alleging that deceased Babar was last seen with these accused persons. Subsequently, his dead body was found.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that case of present applicant is identical to co-accused Monu and Amjad who have already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 27.4.2018 & 15.3.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 29414 of 2015 and 23420 of 2015 respectively and the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity (Bail order produced is taken on record). The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 16.11.2014(more than three years and six months). Criminal history of one case has been explained. Cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. Recovery of one countrymade pistol was shown which has been planted by the police. There is no possibility to get this case decided in short period in future. There is no independent witness. In case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. He admitted that case of the applicant is identical to co-accused Monu and Amjad who have been enlarged on bail.

¶10

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 view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let applicant Imran involved in Case Crime No.859 of 2014, under Section 364, 302, 394, 411, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Lisari Gate, District Meerut be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 24.5.2018

¶19

P.P.

Imran v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dheerendra Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Gurjar Alias Ajay Vs State of U.P.

manoj Vs State of U.P.

Badan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Waseem Vs State of U.P.