Allowed

Jahangir v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 May 2018BAIL/17715/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application allowed. Applicant Jahangir, implicating facts of murder under IPC 302, sought bail. High Court held that based on prosecution averments, circumstantial evidence, and parity with released co-accused, it was a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties each subject to standard bail conditions including not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17715 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Jahangir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ranjit Saxena,Sangam Lal Kesarwani

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit and Counter affidavit filed are taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ranjit Saxena and Sangam Lal Kesarwani, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

According to prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons alleging that on 31.1.2017 they assaulted Rakesh Arora with sharp-edged weapon, resultantly died. Later on, one letter was received to The Senior Superintendent of Police concerned alleging that Jahangir, Nausad and one unknown person have killed deceased. After ten months of incident, second statement of complainant was recorded and he stated that there was dispute between deceased and accused persons relating to property.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the coaccused Saleem has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 2.5.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16283 of 2018; the role of the applicant is identical to the co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity; the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant was not named in the F.I.R. There is no legal evidence against the applicant except letter sent to the S.S.P. concerned. There is independent witness and eye witness account. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. It is a case of circumstantial evidence, no chain is established to connect the applicant with this crime; 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 since 30.12.2017 (more than four months) three cases criminal history has been explained.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and admitted that three cases previous criminal history against this accused have been explained, the role of this accused is identical to the role of the accused who has already 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 opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant-Jahangir involved in Case Crime No. 68 of 2017, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur 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

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

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

¶15

4.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

5.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 :- 14.5.2018 shiv

Jahangir v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahangir 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaihind Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Yadav Alias Mulayam Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Nafees Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Prajapati and Another Vs State of U.P.